The Poetic Superstructure of the Babylonian Talmud and the Reader It Fashions

Home , Ahai, Amoraim, Avodah Zarah, Beitza, Bezalel Ashkenazi, David Weiss Halivni

Zvi Septimus

A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the

requirements for the degree of

Joint Doctor of Philosophy with Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley

Jewish Studies

in the

Graduate Division

of the

University of California, Berkeley

Committee in charge:

Professor Daniel Boyarin, Chair Professor David Henkin Professor Naomi Seidman Spring 2011 The Poetic Superstructure of the Babylonian Talmud and the Reader It Fashions

Abstract

The Poetic Superstructure of the Babylonian Talmud and the Reader It Fashions

Zvi Septimus

Doctor of Philosophy in Jewish Studies

University of California, Berkeley

Professor Daniel Boyarin, Chair

This dissertation proposes a poetics and semiotics of the Bavli (Babylonian Talmud)—how the Bavli, through a complex network of linguistic signs, acts on its implied reader's attempt to find meaning in the text. In doing so, I advance a new understanding of how the Bavli was composed, namely as a book written by its own readers in the act of transmission. In the latter half of the twentieth century, Bavli scholarship focused on the role of the Stam (the collective term for those people responsible for the anonymous voice of the Bavli) in the construction of individual Bavli passages (sugyot). Stam theory details how sugyot were crafted out of pre-existing sources and how the Stam works to control those sources in the service of a particular worldview. This dissertation locates a different force at work in the construction of the Bavli as a single unified book, an authorship that is above and against the work of the Stam—a Superstam. By examining the effect of the Bavli's use of rare and ambiguous terminology, I expand the unit of inquiry from the individual Bavli passage (sugya) to the Bavli in its entirety. I argue that, for the Bavli's implied reader, meaning is not found in the work of the Stam. While the Stam conveys meaning for a local reader, the global reader I explore does not artificially divide the Bavli into its constituent parts. For this reader, the Superstam acts to subvert the controlling work of the Stam through the placement of key words throughout the book. These words, when rare or ambiguous, direct the reader to other sugyot in which they appear. These sugyot, when read simultaneously, work to convey, for the reader, an expression of ambivalence on the part of the Superstam toward those moments of Stammaitic certainty. I conclude that Super-stammaitic activity itself is the result and product of readers who are trained how to read by the Bavli's own expectations. In this way, the Bavli is a text authored by its own readers who, in transmitting the text, become writers again and again.

לזכר נשמת חיה רחל בת פראדע וחיים יצחק

For Bubby

Acknowledgements

This dissertation is the product of twenty years of Talmud study and I therefore must start by acknowledging those friends with whom I have studied significant portions of the Talmud: Ely Behar; Meir Bick; Andrea Brott; Yoni Fisher; David Henkin; Ely Karfunkel; Daniel Kramer; Yaakov Levy; Raphael Munchick; Ari Nat; Elli Stern; Ari Tuchman; Yehudah Weisbord; and my father, Barry Septimus, with whom I have studied nearly half of the Talmud. This project has equally benefitted from the emotional and intellectual engagement and support offered by my friends during the final stages of writings. I would therefore also like to thank: Ethan Einwohner; Brian Garrick; Ari Kramer; Albert Sebag; William Selig; Daniel Silverberg; and Dov Weiss. May Kuckrow and Olynda Spitzer were essential in helping me find a mind/body balance while devoting myself to writing. My siblings and sibling-in-laws, Aliza, Sam, Cookie, Avi, Micci, Tali, Alan, Rache, Ari, and Yoni have equally provided me with emotional support and I would like to thank them for always being there for me. Additionally, my intellectual scope and critical lens have been greatly broadened through relationships with my fellow graduate student colleagues at Berkeley: Noah Kaye; Sarah Levin; Amos Bitzan; Alison Joseph; Yosefa Raz; Zehavit Stern; Riki Ophir; and Shaul Setter. I must thank the following scholars, who have read and commented on my work or have directly assisted me with this project in some other way: Yechiel Bar-Ilan; Pamela Barmash; Ari Bergman; Andrea Brott; Noah Greenfield; Sarah Imhoff; Meir Katz; Dani Kazhdan; Hillel Kieval; Yair Listoken; Shaul Magid; Sheila Melkman; Yosef Rosen; Meir Rotbard; Max Strassfeld; Jeffrey Veidlinger; Nasanel Weiner; and Holger Zellentin. I would like to thank my teachers, professors Ruti Adler, Chava Boyarin, Robert Brody, John Efron, Erich Gruen, Moshe Halbertal, David Weiss Halivni, Ron Hendel, Bernard Septimus, Dina Stein, Isadore Twersky, Trinh Minh-ha, and Molly Weinstein for the impact they've had on the way I think about the Talmud. There is a piece of every one of them in this dissertation. I thank Abigail Septimus for assisting me with some of the charts and figures; and Richard Hidary wrote the computer software I used for organizing the manuscript synopses. This project began to take its form under the guidance of Barry Wimpfheimer, without whom my ideas would never have found written form. Ari Tuchman is perhaps most responsible for a lot of the ideas (and key terminology) found in this dissertation. Through our weekly study sessions, spanning many years, Ari has both helped me refine my own ideas and allowed me to synthesize his. James Loeffler has been a great friend and advisor for many years. He has constantly provided me with insight and support, and has guided my project from its outset. Sergey Dologopolski has been an intellectual mentor and has always worked to explain to me the deeper implications of my ideas. Batya Ungar-Sargon's positive feedback and close reading of my work encouraged me to move forward with the project. I greatly benefited from Saul Friedman, who was a constant study partner for five years of graduate school. Our almost daily exchange of ideas during those years greatly enhanced the development of this project. This project ii would have been unimaginable without the almost daily phone calls to Sam Thrope, Noah Strote, and Elli Stern. Sam has been a constant intellectual partner over the last six years and has always been available to edit and re-edit my work while providing the constructive criticism that motivated me to work harder. Both Noah and Elli, from the beginning, seemed to understand my project better than I. Conferring amongst themselves, they would then inform me of what I was actually trying to say and how I should say it. Without the assistance of Noah, and his mastery over the nuances of the English language, I would still be stuck on some sentence on the first page. From the moment I met Elli in a bomb shelter in Telsche Stone fifteen years ago he has worked tirelessly to compel me to complete this project. Elli's passion is infectious and I certainly would never have been motivated to begin or finish this dissertation without his zealous belief in its importance and his efforts to convince me of the same. Lena Salaymeh worked tirelessly with me over the past few months, both editing my writing and forcing me to organize my ideas. If there is one person responsible for the timely completion of this project, it is her. My time as a student at UC Berkeley and GTU has been marked by the influence of the following scholars: Charlotte Fonrobert has been a great mentor, advisor, and friend. Though I was never officially enrolled at Stanford, I have always felt that Charlotte cared for my intellectual and professional development in the same way that she does for her official students, which is saying a great deal. Aharon Shemesh has taught me much about rabbinic texts. He has also always been available to discuss a difficult sugya or idea and help me understand how to address possible oppositions to one of my theories. Deena Aranoff has helped me refine my pedagogical skills, sometimes with words of advice and often by example. Chana Kronfeld has been a great teacher and guide in the development of my ideas about literary theory. Without her constant support and encouragement, spanning a decade, I would never have developed the theoretical framework necessary to translate my views on the Talmud into the language of an academic discipline. I thank Martin Schwartz and Robert (Uri) Alter for serving on my comprehensive examination committee. Uri has always been available in a timely manner to discuss my work. As an undergraduate I was inspired by his ability to find the beauty in a text. As a graduate student I aspired to try to read the Talmud the way that only he reads the Bible. David Henkin has been a great mentor in many ways throughout my graduate years at Cal. David is always the first person I turn to for advice in any matter. His penetrating insight into intellectual and human affairs has been a great resource for me over the years. David is a world class teacher who I have learned much from. I thank him for serving on my dissertation committee as well as for the time he has spent studying Talmud with me weekly over the last several years. I thank Naomi Seidman for carefully and critically reading my dissertation. Naomi's critique of my writing and ideas has led me to clarify much of what I was trying to communicate to my reader. Naomi's insight into my work has often led me in new and challenging directions. Finally, I am indebted to the Koret Foundation for all of the financial support they have provided me over the years. I also thank Sandy Richmond for always finding a creative way to ease my financial burden.

iii

There are three people who have most influenced my understanding of the Talmud. I feel that I met each one of these people at the perfect moment in my life. I would not be able to say any of what I have said in this dissertation had I not been fortunate enough to have studied with these three scholars. Yehudah (Jeff) Kaplan was my first teacher. Jeff taught me the importance of conceiving of, and practicing, the oral reading of rabbinic texts. When I met Shamma Friedman, almost fifteen years ago, I brought with me a notebook filled with questions. He answered all of those questions with one answer. I have spent the last fifteen years thinking about his answer and this dissertation is the product of that thought. Daniel Boyarin has been the most important and influential intellectual figure of my academic life thus far. I have been lucky to have the opportunity to watch Daniel’s rapid fire innovations in the field up close over an eleven year period. Daniel constantly moves forward with his thought and encourages his students to do the same. In attempting to build upon his work, I often wonder where his ideas end and mine begin. I am fortunate and honored that Daniel took me on as his student and saw in me the potential worth his investment. I hope that this dissertation is a satisfactory down payment on the debt I owe him. While I already knew how to read the words of the Talmud before I met him, Daniel has taught me the skill required to read the Talmud between the words. In conclusion, I thank my parents Bonnie and Barry Septimus for making their home an environment where learning was considered the most valuable endeavor. Not only did my parents encourage me to spend many years pursuing knowledge of rabbinic texts, but both of them constantly engaged me in discussion and debate about the nuances of the meanings of those texts. The open intellectual atmosphere of my parents' home both allowed and encouraged me to pursue this otherwise impractical goal. I thank my grandmother Dorothy (Bobbi) Hirth for providing me with love and material support. It was in her home that I wrote this entire dissertation and I think of her every day. Finally, I dedicate this work to Helen (Bubby) Resnikoff. Bubby took living seriously. In another time it would have been her who wrote this dissertation. It is only through Bubby that I can conceive of a human being who can memorize a two million word text and transmit it to the next generation of readers. I model the global Bavli reader after her.

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 1 Stam Theory ...... 4 The Superstam ...... 11 The Global Bavli Reader ...... 14 Outline and Summary of Chapters ...... 19 Implications of the Global Bavli Reader ...... 24 PART I: AMBIGUITY ...... 26 Chapter One: The Effect of the Ambiguous Phrase on the Linearity of the Reading Process ...... 27 Understanding the Space of the Reader ...... 28 Is There a Difference Between Life and Death in the Bavli? ...... 30 Source Criticism Versus Text Criticism ...... 33 Moses Writes the Torah: Readers Write the Bavli ...... 35 Real Readers Reading ...... 42 Chapter 2: Ambiguity as Subversion: Countering the Logic of the Sugya...... 49 Example 1 (Baba Kama 32b): Descriptive Language in a Halakhic Sugya...... 51 Example 2 (Niddah 64b): Is Shmuel's Boastful Expertise in Exotic Sexual Techniques Meant to Be Taken Seriously? ...... 57 Niddah 24b and Yevamot 104a: The Formation of a Web of Meaning ...... 61 Conclusion ...... 65 Chapter 3: Ambiguity and the Process of Making Meaning in a Nonlinear, Self- referencing, and Circular (Global) Text ...... 67 Terminology ...... 71 Ambiguity in Ketubot 11a ...... 73 Ketubot 11a: What Does it Mean to be in a State of Ownerlessness? ...... 74 76 ...... "עבדא בהפקירא" The Reader's Synchronic Philological Encounter with the Phrase Ketubot 11a: A 'First Glance' Misreading ...... 78 Gittin 13a: The Referenced Text ...... 81 Returning to Ketubot 11a: The Effect of Correcting the "First Glance" Misreading .. 86 Reading Both Passages Simultaneously: A Global Reading ...... 88

Summary of Part One: Ambiguity ...... 90 PART II: TRIGGER WORDS ...... 93 Chapter 4: Reading Beyond the Aggadic Sugya: Toward a New Theory on the Bavli's Composition ...... 94 The Fat Rabbis Story ...... 96 A Linear Attempt at a Local Reading ...... 102 Reading the Fat Rabbis Story in its Larger Baba Metzia Context ...... 110 Reading Baba Metzia With an Echo from Yevamot ...... 111 Chapter 5:The Virgin and the Slaughtered Ox: Reading the Bavli Beyond the Halakhic Sugya ...... 116 Virginity as Commodity ...... 116 Virginity Claims in Ancient Jewish Texts: Why the Anxiety? ...... 118 Ketubot 46a: Garment Really Means Witnesses ...... 121 Pre-Bavli Conceptions of the Garment: An Elaborate Case of Witnesses ...... 127 Legislating the Biblical Scenario: What Problems the rabbis Faced ...... 132 Background for Ketubot 15b-16a: the Four Cases ...... 136 The Fifth Case: Rabbi Yehosh'ua Finally Concedes ...... 142 The Sugya at Ketubot 16a ...... 143 Beyond the Sugya: Reading Ketubot 16a as Part of the Bavli ...... 152 Chapter 6: Ambivalent Artistry: The Effects of the Bavli's Unifying Use of Language on Its Local and Global Readers ...... 156 Kiddushin 70 and the Problem of Translation ...... 156 Kiddshin 70: Presented as a Theater Script ...... 159 Kiddushin 70 as a (Self) Reflection on Bavli's use of Language: A Local Reading with an Emphasis on Language ...... 166 Reading Kiddushin 70 in its Extended Context: ...... 172 The Trigger Word/Simultext Reading Effect ...... 176 Shavuot 30: A Preliminary Demonstration of the Trigger Word/Simultext Reading Effect ...... 177 The Superstam as Global Bavli Reader ...... 180 Kiddushin 70's War of Words ...... 183 The Drink:...... 184 The Berakhot 51 Simultext: ...... 186 Second Generation Simultexts: Niddah 20 and Shavuot 30 as Simultexts of Berakhot 51 ...... 187 The Fruit: ...... 189 vi

The Seat: ...... 195 In Conclusion: ...... 198 Conclusion ...... 200 What is the Babylonian Talmud? ...... 200 Who is the Bavli's Reader? ...... 201 What is Meaning?...... 203 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 205 Appendix A: Rashi's Commentary to Baba Metzia 84a (Chapter Four) ...... 211 Appendix B: Background Information For Niddah 15a (Chapter Five) ...... 215 Appendix C: An Aural Reading of Kiddushin 70, Highlighting Point of View (Chapter Six) ...... 220 Appendix D: Synopsis of Baba Batra 15a (Chapter One) ...... 225 Appendix E: Synopsis of Menaḥot 30a (Chapter One) ...... 233 Appendix F: Synopsis of Yalkut Shimoni to Deuteronomy 34:5, Sifre 357:5, and Vilna Menaḥot 30a (Chapter One)...... 237 Appendix G: Synopsis of Baba Kamma 32b (Chapter Two) ...... 240 Appendix H: Synopsis of Niddah 64b (Chapter Two)...... 245 Appendix I: Synopsis of Ketubot 11a (Chapter Three) ...... 247 Appendix K: Synopsis of Baba Metzia 84a (Chapter Four) ...... 256 Appendix L: Synopsis of Yevamot 17a (Chapter Four) ...... 261 Appendix M: Synopsis of Ketubot 15b-16a (Chapter Five) ...... 266 Appendix N: Synopsis of Kiddushin 70a-b (Chapter Six)...... 277 Appendix O: Synopsis of Ketubot 46a (Chapter Five) ...... 294

vii

Introduction

The Babylonian Talmud, also known as the Bavli,1 narrates a story of rabbinic life in Babylonia and Palestine over an eight hundred-year period in thirty-six volumes. The Bavli's story of those rabbis (when they are conceived of as characters rather than historical figures) begins in Palestine at the time of the Alexandrian conquest (mid-fourth century BCE). The details of the early parts of the story are sparse, and as the story approaches the time of its tellers the parameters and scope of the narrative continuously expand. At the start of the third century CE, the story's geographical center shifts from Palestine to Babylonia, where it tails off in the mid-fifth century. During the period of overlap, or when the story of both Palestinian and Babylonian rabbinic life is narrated, there is an "us" and "them" perspective displayed in the text. The Palestinian story continues to be told, but it is often told from the perspective of travelers bringing traditions and stories back from visits to Palestine. I refer to the Bavli as telling a story for three reasons. The first is to break down the long-held belief that the text enclosed within the Bavli's bindings can be artificially divided into two distinct genres: halakha (legal matter) and aggada (non-legal matter).2 The second is to argue for a conception of the Bavli as a single unified narrative rather than a fragmented series of short episodes and debates. The third is to highlight the fact that though the events of the story are told out of order, the reader organizes those events through the Bavli's own chronological logic. In the process, the reader constructs a sketch of the characters portrayed in the story according to the Bavli's own internal conception of history. For the purposes of my investigation into the literary nature of the Bavli as a single unified book and my exploration of the ideal reader of that book—a reader who, in conformity with the expectations of the book

1 I use the term "Bavli," throughout, to denote the Babylonian Talmud. I use the term "Talmud" when I refer without distinction to both the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmud. When referring to the Bavli in adjectival form, I use the word "Talmudic."

2 The story of rabbinic life told in the Bavli contains as much legal, or halakhic, as it does aggadic discussion. I follow Wimpfheimer in viewing the Bavli through a lens that does not artificially divide the Bavli into two books within the book, one consisting of halakhic material and one consisting of aggadic material (any material which is not halakhic in nature). [Barry Scott Wimpfheimer, Narrating the Law: A Poetics of Talmudic Legal Stories (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011), 4-6.] I also here follow Wimpfheimer in defining aggada as the non-halakhic material presented in the Bavli, rather than by any positive definition. "It is common for people to define Aggadah in positive terms as narrative. As explained below, though, this definition is imprecise. The negative definition “non-legal” better captures the full range of texts treated as Aggadah and allows the two sides of the binary to together encompass all rabbinic texts." Ibid., 169 n. 1.

itself, does not artificially divide the book into smaller supposedly self-contained units—I conceive of the Bavli as a single complex narrative.3 The Bavli's story is told through thousands of disconnected vignettes, encompassing all aspects of life, connected through stream-of-consciousness associations rather than by linear progression. Often, these stories are presented as a dialogue between two contemporaneous rabbis regarding an obscure legal matter. Though these rabbis might have lived in different cities, they are presented in the narrative as having a conversation, as if in the same room. Still other times, a story might be told of a debate between a number of rabbis over a period of hundreds of years. Each new Rabbi introduced into the story is seen as commenting on the previous rabbi's statement, as if no time elapsed between statement and response. Sometimes, though very rarely, these vignettes are biographical stories continuing for a number of pages. Most of the vignettes, however, extend for only a few lines and could be as sparing as "Rabbi A said X; and Rabbi B said Y."4

3 I do not just oppose the division of halakha and aggada but also suggest that what unites the book includes both halakha and aggada. I refer to a "complex narrative" because I would not expect the Bavli's mode of narration to neatly match any existing formal criteria put forth in the field of narratology. That is not to say that prominent narratologists were not familiar with the Talmud. Meir Sternberg is certainly an example of a scholar who was. However, the structuralist agenda for the narratological enterprise is to find similarities between the storytelling techniques of disparate cultures. For the Talmud, those similarities can only be found when the Talmud is broken down into a series of disconnected stories. If the Talmud is seen as a single story, then its mode of narration is unique. Though some have compared the Talmud's storytelling technique to that of Proust's À la Recherche du Temps Perdu or Joyce's Finnegans's Wake, I am not aware of any scholarly publication extending that argument. 4 Once Rabbi A is understood to have said many things in this manner the short biographical notes about Rabbi A become much more interesting for the reader who is creating a composite sketch. This is certainly the type of reading strategy encouraged by the Bavli. So, for example, the point of a comment made by Rav Naḥman the son of Yiṣḥaq, which immediately follows a story about Rabi Abin at Kiddushin 44a, is explained by the Bavli as follows:

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק אנא לא רבי אבין ברבי חייא ולא רבי אבין בר כהנא אלא רבי אבין סתם למאי נפקא מינה למירמא דידיה אדידיה

Rav Naḥman the son of Yiṣḥaq stated: [When] I [heard this story, I] did not [hear] whether it was Rabbi Abin the son of Rabbi Ḥiyya or Rabbi Abin the son of Kahana, rather [I heard the story quoted] with a non-specific Rabbi Abin. [The Gemara asks:] What is the practical difference? (i.e. what is the point of citing Rav Naḥman's statement as an addendum to the story?) [The Gemara answers: To use one statement of Rabbi Abin to contradict another.]

I have translated this text according to the reading of Rashi, who emphasizes the fact that this is how Rav Naḥman heard the story. Alternatively, one can read Rav Naḥman's statement as an interpretation, or reading, of the story. However one chooses to translate this text the point is the same. The Talmud takes its ascriptions very seriously and encourages its reader to pay close attention to those ascriptions. But see, Daniel Boyarin, Socrates and the Fat Rabbis (University of Chicago Press, 2009), 151., who contests this approach when assessing the precision by which the Bavli's authors acted in ascribing various statements to various characters throughout the Bavli. Although Boyarin might be correct in his assessment of the 2

Though the story of the rabbis presented in the Bavli contains hundreds of characters, living in many countries, over hundreds of years, there is one unnamed character who appears most dominant. This character has been called the "Baʿal Hashas" (the master of the Talmud), the "Stamma de-Gemara" (the anonymous voice of the Gemara),5 or simply "the Stam." The Stam either represents the literary activity or people, or both—depending on which modern Talmud scholars' opinions we follow— that, or who, we refer to when we say: "the Talmud says," "the Talmud asks," and "the Talmud answers."6 Scholars have long asked the question: Who tells the story of the Bavli and what does their storytelling tell us about them?7 They have less often asked: How is this story told and what does this mode of storytelling tell us about how we read and find meaning in the Bavli?8 By using the Bavli's implied reader9 as my starting

motivations of the authors of a particular layer of the Talmudic text, it is certainly the case that the Bavli (according to its own internal rhetoric) appears to take its own ascriptions very seriously and, by extension, encourages its reader to do so as well.

5 The Talmud contains both Mishnah and Gemara. The Mishnah is a legal code, which is generally considered to have been redacted around the year 200 CE by Rabbi Judah the Prince. The Mishnah does not commit to a final ruling in matters of law but rather presents a number of opinions for each subject discussed. The Gemara represents a discussion generated by the contents of the Mishnah beginning around the year 200 CE. Although it is unclear when the Gemara was redacted, the final named characters involved in the discussions in the Gemara are presented as living in mid-fourth century Bavel (modern day Iraq.)

6 A further comparison to Proust's À la Recherche du Temps Perdu is helpful for illustrative purposes, though I do not mean to make a direct analogy. À la Recherche du Temps Perdu presents itself as the autobiography of Marcel Proust. Though Proust does not mention his own name in the book, there are two Proust's who are ever-present. One is a young Proust who is a character described in the book and one is an older Proust who is the storyteller. Both are separate characters in the book, yet the line between them is often blurry. It is helpful to think of the Bavli in this way, only as not applied to an individual person, but to an entire culture. rabbinic culture, as a charter, is described in the Bavli by the older (i.e. historically later) version of that character. Just as the older Proust never appears as character, yet his voice is ever- present, so too the later (post Amoraic/ post 5th century) version of rabbinic culture never appears as a character in the Bavli, yet its voice is ever-present.

7 Even earlier Talmud scholarship assumed the Bavli to be an actual historical account, written down in piecemeal at the time of each event's occurrence.

8 I will later distinguish my approach from that taken by Daniel Boyarin in his recent book, Socrates and the Fat Rabbis.

9 I borrow the term "implied reader" from Wolfgand Iser. Iser differentiates between an "actual reader," a reader who brings outside, or extra-textual, information with him into the reading process and an "implied reader," whom he defines as follows:

The "implied reader" embodies all those predispositions necessary for a literary work to exercise its effect—predispositions laid down, not by an empirical outside reality, but by the text itself. Consequently, the implied reader as a concept has his roots firmly planted in the structure 3

point, this dissertation focuses on describing both a poetics and a semiotics of the Bavli— how the Bavli's distinctive literary design operates on its implied reader as a complex system of signs.10

Stam Theory

The motivations and identities of the Talmud’s authors and compilers have occupied the central point of inquiry for academic Talmud scholars over the past half century.11 While there have been many studies on the literary characteristics of individual passages (sugyot)12 within the Bavli, the literary characteristics that define the Bavli as a unified book have been almost completely ignored.13 It is helpful to contrast the approaches of two pioneers in the literary analysis of individual Talmud passages, Jonah Fraenkel and Shamma Friedman. Fraenkel's work is often viewed as marking the genesis of the literary analysis of rabbinic texts within the academy. Fraenkel was greatly influenced by the school of New Criticism and read each rabbinic story the way a New Critic would read a poem, as a self-contained literary unit. For his analysis of rabbinic texts, Fraenkel purposely ignores any historical information that might shed light

of the text; he is a construct and in no way to be identified with any real reader.

[Wolfgang Iser, The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980), 34.] Iser differentiates his concept of "implied reader from Michael Riffaterre's "superreader," Stanley Fish's "informed reader," and Erwin Wolff's "intended reader." Ibid., 30.

10 In this way, my dissertation is programmatically similar to Michael Riffaterre's work on French poetry. [Michael Riffaterre, Semiotics of Poetry (Indiana University Press, 1978).

11 For a review of the major academic Talmud theorists of the latter half of the twentieth century, see Aryeh Cohen, Rereading Talmud: Gender, Law, and the Poetics of Sugyot (Scholars Press, 1998), 7-130.

12 Individual Talmud passages. Sugya, in the singular. (The boundaries of a sugya are not demarcated in any way and it is therefore an artificial category. Oftentimes, the only way that the reader is alerted to the fact that one sugya has concluded and another has begun is by noticing a dramatic shift in the topic being discussed.)

13 Jacob Neusner is the most prominent exception. See, for example, Jacob Neusner, The Rules of Composition of the Talmud of Babylonia: The Cogency of the Bavli’s Composite (Scholars Press, 1991); Jacob Neusner, The Bavli’s Intellectual Character: the Generative Problematic : in Bavli Baba Qamma Chapter One and Bavli Shabbat Chapter One (Scholars Press, 1992), 195; Jacob Neusner, The Bavli’s One Statement: The Metapropositional Program of Babylonian Talmud Tractate Zebahim Chapters One and Five (Scholars Press, 1991); Daniel Boyarin, in Socrates and the Fat Rabbis, also conceives of the Bavli as a book and works to locate its genre.

on the story, whether that information is internal or external to rabbinic literature.14 The result of his studies was to see each rabbinic story as a unit containing a particular message. The final word in each story was where that story ended and therein lay the key to unlocking the message of the story.15 Shamma Friedman, on the other hand, is more interested in understanding how an individual passage in the Bavli is constructed than what its ultimate “message” might 16 be.15F While Fraenkel focuses his attention exclusively on the non-legal (or aggadic) sections of rabbinic literature, Friedman's work focuses on all aspects of rabbinic literature, both legal (halakhic) and non-legal (aggadic). Additionally, Friedman 17 closure).16F While Fraenkel) סגירות contrasts his approach with Fraenkel’s notion of believes that each individual story found in rabbinic literature must be analyzed without regard to any other piece of rabbinic literature, Friedman seeks to demonstrate the relationship between two rabbinic passages by studying the evolution of "earlier" more crudely crafted sources into "later" and more elaborately constructed literary creations.

14 Jonah Fraenkel, “She’elot Hermeneutiyot be-Ḥeker Sippur ha-’Aggadah,” Tarbiṣ 47 (1978): 139-172.

15 Fraenkel (Fraenkel, Sipûr Ha-ʾagādâ: ʾaḥdût Šel Tōken Wě-Ṣûrâ, 23.) writes: “The talmudic story— without recourse to the question of its literary type –has a didactic purpose. It enters the world and is told in order to educate the listeners.” Fraenkel, Sipûr Ha-ʾagādâ: ʾaḥdût Šel Tōken Wě-Ṣûrâ, 23, as quoted in Wimpfheimer, Narrating the Law, 214, n.39.

16 Shamma Friedman, “ʿal Derekh Ḥeker ha-Sugyah,” in Meḥḳarim U-Meḳorot (Nyu Yorḳ: Bet ha-midrash le-rabanim ba-Ameriḳah [distributed by Ktav Pub. House], 1977), 278-441. Shamma Yehudah Friedman, “le-ʾagadâ Hahîsṭôrît be-Talmûd ha-Bavlî,” in Saul Lieberman Memorial Volume, ed. Shamma Friedman (New York and Jerusalem: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1993), 120-164. Shamma Friedman, “The Further Adventures of Rav Kahana,” in The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman culture, ed. Peter Schäfer, vol. 3, 3 vols. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 247-271.

17 In the words of Aryeh Cohen, “Fraenkel sees each story as “hermetic,” having a strong “internal” and “external” closure. Aryeh Cohen, Rereading Talmud (Scholars Press, 1998). p.72. Jeffrey Rubenstein :closure) as follows) סגירות explains Fraenkel's notion of

A dogmatic principle of Fraenkel's is that stories display "internal and external closure." By "internal closure" Fraenkel means that stories are self-contained units, complete in and of themselves. The story supplies all the information necessary for its interpretation. The end refers back to the beginning, completing the circle and sealing the story in a world of its own. Indeed, this self-contained quality is part of the literary artistry of the rabbinic story. By "external closure" Fraenkel means that each story is independent of a wider narrative framework. One cannot ask what happened before or after the events related in the story, what caused the situation, or what consequences ensued. Nor do stories relate in any way to other stories, even if they portray the same character or address a common theme. Thus stories about a given sage may contradict since each story was created for its own didactic purpose. A story exists in a secluded textual space with no allusion or reference to other texts.

Jeffrey L. Rubenstein, Talmudic Stories: Narrative Art, Composition, and Culture (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999), 10.

Friedman's earlier sources are often found in rabbinic works that pre-date the Bavli, like the Palestinian Talmud or the Tosefta. However, he also demonstrates how earlier sources found only within the Bavli itself are used to construct later Bavli passages. Friedman explains, that by contrasting earlier sources and the later construction of, and from, those sources he can begin to not only discover what changes were made and how they were made but also to understand "why" the changes were made. In contradistinction to Fraenkel's method of understanding a narrative's didactic motivation in isolation, Friedman compares earlier and later versions of narratives and discovers the didactic motivation of the narrative in the differences between the two.18 He, too, considers that the reasons for these changes lie in didactic motivations. Friedman's method explains why it is that certain stories in the Bavli share a large number of phrases and words with other stories in the Bavli. If a late narrative is constructed from earlier narratives, then the late narrative will borrow much language from the earlier narratives. Friedman also argues that Bavli stories linked by common language also usually contain common topics: “The plethora of rhetoric and phraseology in [one] story which is similar to other passages in the Bavli is typical of late aggadic compositions which draw upon existing Babylonian aggadot for both language and content.”19 Friedman's account of the construction of late sugyot from material found in earlier sources is meticulous and persuasive. The result of Friedman’s source-critical examination of these texts is the creation of a linear, diachronic narrative of the evolution of a particular rabbinic formulation from its earliest fixed form through its various manifestations and manipulations into its final canonical materialization in the Bavli. Over the course of his career, Friedman has been very careful to focus on the project of identifying literary criteria through which to recognize the hand of the crafter of the sugya, rather than making any concrete historical claims about those craftsmen, including when or where they lived.20 But those craftsmen who redacted the Bavli have come to be identified by the term "the Stam.” "The Stam," meaning the anonymous voice of the Talmud, was a term that was popularized by David Weiss Halivni in the 1960s.21 Halivni was not the first to notice that there is an anonymous voice of the Talmud, a voice distinct from the voice of the hundreds of named characters who interact with each other as part of the Talmud's overall

18 Friedman, “The Further Adventures of Rav Kahana,” 248.

19 Ibid., 259.

20 Friedman, “ʿal Derekh Ḥeker ha-Sugyah,” 283-321. See Rubenstein's description of Friedman in “Criteria of Stammaitic Intervention in Aggada,” in Creation and Composition: The Contribution of the Bavli Redactors (Stammaim) to the Aggada (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 417 n.1.

21 Halivni talks about the Stam as early as 1968. [See, for example, David Weiss Halivni, Sources and Traditions: A Source Critical Commentary on Seder Nashim (Tel Aviv: Hŵṣaʾat Dbiyr, 1968). It is quite possible, though that he does not conceive of them as people, Stammaim, until 1982. See Daniel Boyarin, “Hellenism in Jewish Babylonia,” in The Cambridge companion to the Talmud and rabbinic Literature, ed. Charlotte Elisheva Fonrobert and Martin S. Jaffee (Cambridge University Press, 2007), 360 n.13.

narrative. Rashi22 Solomon the son of Isaac (Rashi d. 1105, France), the most influential commentator of the Bavli, often uses the term "the Shas"23 to denote a line of demarcation between the end of the voice of a particular character and the start of the narrator's voice. The distinction between Halivni's Stam and Rashi's Baʿal HaShas24 may be found in their perceived function. Whereas Rashi might see the Shas as another character in the story, Halivni sees the Stam as outside of the story, they are the people who create and tell the story.25 Halivni's Stam took the disconnected statements of hundreds of real people, and reframed them, often placing these statements at odds with their original intent, into an imagined scholarly dialogue that took place continually over hundreds of years. For Halivni, then, the named statements found in the Bavli represent actual statements made by actual people; it is only the dialogue of the Talmud that is fabricated. Who fabricated this dialogue and what was their motivation? For Halivni the motivation can often be found by tracing the Stam's misunderstanding of the original intent or context of the statements. This misunderstanding takes place in a historical period somewhat removed from the statements' original contexts—a later time in which the original intent of the statements had become confused, allowing for new motivations to shape this material. Halivni works to lock down this activity to an actual set of years represented by a gap in Jewish history and historiography. The last of the named characters in the Bavli lived in the mid-fifth century. The first historical figures of the Geonic period lived in the early seventh century. This represents a period of 150 years where little is known about Babylonian Jewish people or events. The major historical document that Halivni uses to ground his reconstruction of the post-Amoraic (i.e. post 500 CE) period is the letter of Sherira Gaon (d. ca.1000, Iraq). This letter, authored by Sherira and completed by his son Hai, details the chain of tradition from Tannaitic times to the Gaonic period. Sherira deals with the hundred and

22 Solomon the son of Isaac of Northern France (1040-1105).

is commonly used as a shorthand for Talmud. It is an acronym for the Six Orders of Mishnah (ש"ס) Shas 23 .(ששה סדרים) represented in the Talmud

",This phrase can be loosely translated as "the one who is doing the speaking in the Talmud .בעל הש"ס 24 the entity that traditional students of the Talmud refer to when they say "the Talmud asks" or "the Talmud answers."

25 This is perhaps a more accurate description of Shamma Friedman's approach than that of Halivni's. I only use Halivni at this point in my discussion in order to set up a contrast that I will later address as it relates to the evolution of Halivni's thought over time. Sergey Dolgopolski (Sergey Dolgopolski, Who Speaks, Thinks, and Remembers in the Talmud?: An Essay on the Virtual, n.d.) provides a nuanced description of the underlying theoretical differences between the approaches of Halivni and Friedman. In so doing, Dolgopolski details Halivni's conflation of the stam of the Talmud and the stam in the Talmud. The stam of the Talmud refers to the crafter of the sugya; the stam in the Talmud refers to the statements within the Talmud that are put forth anonymously. The stam in the Talmud would be similar to Rashi's .designer of the sugya ,בעל התלמוד Ba'al HaShas. The stam of the Talmud roughly equates to Friedman's [See Friedman, “ʿal Derekh Ḥeker ha-Sugyah,” 283-321 .]

fifty year gap in Jewish history by introducing the Saboraim; the Saboraim were tradents who passed on the Talmud from generation to generation while making almost no substantive additions or subtractions to from it.26 Since Halivni sees the Stam less as a tradent or redactor and more as an active creator of the Talmud as we know it, he tries to find the precise period in history when this activity took place—during which historical moments the Stammaim,27 as opposed to the Saboraim, were active. Throughout his career, Halivni has altered his position as to the exact years in which these Stammaim were operating. With every new "introduction" to each new volume of Sources and Traditions, Halivni perceives more and more Stammaitic activity within the Bavli itself.28 What started out, in Halivni's earliest accounts of the Stam, as a fraction of the overall activity presented in the Talmud had now become most of it. 29 Additionally, throughout the evolution of Halivni's thought, the exact dating of the Stam shifts later and later in history. Eventually, Halivni invents multiple Stams, some early and some late, to account for the various different creative activities that he sees in disparate parts of the Bavli.

26 I say "for the most part" because Sherira does claim that the Saboraim authored minor additions to the Gemara in some instances. Sherira states as follows:

Afterwards, even though there certainly was no more Talmudic halachic determination, there were [sages] who provided explanations of the [Talmud] and [who] were close to halachic determination. These Sages were called Saboraim. Anything left undecided [by the Amoraim] was explained by them.

Translation by Rabbi Nosson Dovid Rabinowich in Sherira ben Hanina (Gaon), The Iggeres of Rav Sherira Gaon, trans. Natan Daṿid ben Yehudah Leyb Rabinovits (Rabbi Jacob Joseph School Press, Ahavath Torah Institute, 1988). Sherira goes on to give the names of a small number of Saboraim as well as a couple of Talmudic passages that were "traditionally" ascribed to the Saboraim, including the somewhat lengthy sugya that appears at the start of tractate Kiddushin. Sherira's conception of the quantitative extent in which the Saboraim either appear or were involved in the writing, editing, or organizing of the text of the Talmud is certainly unclear from the content of Sherira's actual letter. Halivni details the kind of textual activity that the Savora'im engaged in, as well as four characteristics by which to locate the hand of the Savora'im, in Daṿid Halivni, Meḳorot U-Masorot: Beʼurim Ba-Talmud: Masekhet Bava Metsiʻa (Yerushalayim: Hotsaʼat ha-sefarim ʻa. sh. Magnes, Universiṭah ha-ʻIvrit, 2003). 27 "The anonymous ones." Halivni's term for the historical people who were responsible for the activity of the Stam.

28 A collection of Halivni's introductions to six different volumes of Sources and Traditions, representing the evolution of his thought on the Stam over a forty-plus year period, can be found in Daṿid Halivni, Mevoʼot Li-Meḳorot U-Masorot: ʻiyunim Be-Hithaṿut Ha-Talmud (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2009).

29 David Weiss Halivni, Sources and Tradition: A Source Critical Commentary on the Talmud Tractate Baba Batra (Hebrew) (The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2007), 5-51. An abbreviated English translation of Halivni's introduction to the Baba Batra volume of Sources and Traditions can be found in David Halivni, “Aspects of the Formation of the Talmud,” in Creation and Composition: The Contribution of the Bavli Redactors (Stammaim) to the Aggada, ed. Jeffrey L Rubenstein, trans. Jeffrey L. Rubenstein (Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 339-360.

To make room for all of this activity, he alters his view of the Saboraim. According to the latest iteration of Halivni's theory, the Saboraim and Stammaim now both live during the gap in Babylonian Jewish history (a time period, the length of which, Halivni also greatly expands). The Saboraim are responsible for very minor additions to an already completed Bavli and represent the people who lived, for a few decades, at the tail end of this time period. The Stammaim represent the literary activity that took place during the majority of this span. Where Halivni's earlier claim that the Stammaitic period lasted for fifty years (ending in the late sixth century) and was followed by a one hundred and fifty year Saboraic period, his most recent formulation has the Stammaim active from the mid-fifth century through the mid-eight century and the Saboraim as active during second third of the eight century.30 During the period where the two groups overlap, the Saboraim represent the people who lived during this time period and the Stammaim represent the literary activity that took place during that time.31 With this move, Halivni has greatly expanded the possible timeframe for Stammaitic activity The effect of Halivni's ideas about the historical Stam has been to establish a new set of questions for scholars of the ancient world. Whereas Wissenschaft des Judentums scholars of the nineteenth century used the Talmud to talk about the history and ideologies of the characters presented therein, late twentieth-century Jewish Studies scholars now had a new historical era to study. The Bavli now was comprised of original statements made by historical personages but it also contained the alteration of the meaning of those original statements. By comparing the original with the altered version, scholars now had a window into the ideologies of both groups.32 Where Friedman's work demonstrated that scholars can divide the Bavli up into sugyot that were either constructed "earlier" or "later," Halivni pinned down the different forms of literary activity to actual people living at particular moments in history. The theory of multiple Stams also afforded scholars the opportunity to theorize about the existence of two separate groups—each with a distinct ideology—that independently crafted the Halakhic and Aggadic sections of the Talmud.33

30 See Ibid., 344-346.

31 Halivni's struggle, throughout the course of his career, to account for a historical place for both the "Stammaim" and the "Saboraim" appears to derive from a strict and heightened allegiance to a certain aspect of Sherira's letter. Although Halivni has introduced "the Stam," both a literary activity and group of people unaccounted for in Sherira's letter, he seems to have a difficult time letting go of the group which Sherira calls the "Saboraim" and the limited activity that Sherira ascribes to this group.

32 The imagined original versions are primarily reconstructed using source critical methodologies. While some scholars have taken a minimalist and exacting approach to these reconstructions (e.g. Shamma Friedman) Halivni has been known to often rely on intuition. For Friedman's statement on methodology, see Friedman, “ʿal Derekh Ḥeker ha-Sugyah,” 227-321.; Shamma Friedman, Talmud ʻarukh: Pereḳ Ha- Śokher Et Ha-Umanin: Bavli Bava Metsiʻa Pereḳ Shishi: Mahadurah ʻal Derekh Ha-Meḥḳar ʻim Perush Ha-Sugiyot (Yerushalayim: Bet ha-midrash le-rabanim ba-Ameriḳah, 1990), 3-98.

33 See, for example, Richard Kalmin, “The Formation and Character of the Babylonian Talmud,” in The Late Roman-rabbinic period, ed. Steven T. Katz, vol. 4, The Cambridge History of Judaism (Cambridge University Press, 2006), 840-876. Whereas earlier scholarship on the Stam had been limited to analyzing 9

The most radical conception of multiple Stams was recently introduced by Daniel Boyarin in his 2009 book Socrates and the Fat rabbis.34 In this book, Boyarin differentiates between the "Stam of the sugya," that Stam that fashions the individual literary components that make up the Bavli, and the "Stam of the Bavli," the redaction- force that combines these smaller components into the book we call the Bavli. Boyarin, after making clear that he is talking about author functions rather than authors, argues that what is truly dialogical about the Bavli is not the dialogues found therein but the ways in which the disparate voices of certain genres interact with one another. For Boyarin, these genres are the Halakhic sugyot and the biographical sketches of those characters found in the Halakhic sugyot.35 When these genres and their opposing "voices" are placed in dialogue they form a new genre that is most akin to the spoudogeloion (serio-comic) genre of Menippean Satire.36 Boyarin's approach stems from a desire to understand what type of literature the Bavli is. It is also driven by a quest to distinguish the multiple voices found in the Bavli and demonstrate that that multiplicity of voices is not to be found in the voices of the characters themselves, when put into dialogue with each other, but in the worldviews expressed by different types of sugyot. It is in the particular manifestation of those different worldviews within the Bavli where Boyarin locates the book's dialogicity. While the "Stam of the sugya" is monologizing, the "Stam of the Bavli" is dialogizing. The "Stam of the sugya," as narrator of the serious content of the Bavli, works to control the multiplicity of voices contained within its sources and make them conform them to a single worldview.37 This is true for both legal and non-legal material.38 However, there

legal sections of the Talmud, recent scholarship has focused on the role of a Stam in crafting the non-legal sections of the Talmud. Although Friedman was an early proponent of such work, it was not until a February 2003 conference dedicated to The Contribution of the Bavli Redactors (Stammaim) to the Aggada (sponsored by the Skirball Department of Hebrew and Judaic Studies at New York University) that the academic community fully embraced the project. The proceedings of this conference were published in the volume “Criteria of Stammaitic Intervention in Aggada.” Barry Wimpfheimer's recent work has demonstrated how one Stam works to control the Bavli by making the non-legal sections of the Bavli conform to the Bavli's legal agenda. He does so by exploring a particular kind of non-legal source material, the legal narrative. Wimpfheimer, Narrating the Law.

34 Boyarin, Socrates and the Fat Rabbis, 133-210.

35 Boyarin distinguishes between biographical stories and aggada, a term he believes should only be applied to homilies. Ibid., 186.

36 Particularly, the works of Lucian (c. 125- c. 180, Greece).

37 Boyarin mostly agrees with Wimpfheimer's account in Narrating the Law, but disagrees in those instances when carnivalesque biographical tales are embedded within those sugyot. Boyarin, Socrates and the Fat Rabbis, 161-166.

38 Here Boyarin follows the recent work of Barry Wimpfheimer, who demonstrates that the Stam of the sugya works to monologize both non-legal and non-legal material within the Bavli. Wimpfheimer demonstrates how the Stam of the sugya controls the opposing voices found in pre-existing halakhic and aggadic sources in inventing a new monologocial product that appears in the Bavli. For Wimpfheimer, the 10

is another narrator to be found within the book's covers. This narrator has its own language and voice, and provides the "acerbic, corrosive, bizarre legendary narratives" of the Bavli.39 The "Stam of the Bavli" is the author function whose own language is always infused with the language found in both the serious and comic voices of the text. This "neutral—but biased—third party" is the location at which the Bavli expresses it dialogicity.40

The Superstam

By discovering a dialogical voice in the interaction between two literary components of the Bavli, rather than within the dialogue of its characters, Boyarin has paved the way for my analysis of how the Bavli operates on its implied reader when viewed as the self-glossing book it presents itself to be. I build upon Boyarin's description of how the two distinct voices (the serious and the comic) found in the Bavli work against each other— or together—when expressed in the language of the "Stam of the Bavli," a language always dialogized by the two opposing voices utilized in narrating the Bavli. I seek to demonstrate how, for the Bavli's implied reader, those two voices are never distinct; each sugya within the Bavli necessarily interacts with some other sugya. The aspect of this intertextual (if sugyot are viewed autonomously) or intratextual (if sugyot are viewed as part of a unified book) relationship that involves legal concepts—the discrepancies between the logical ramifications of two different sugyot and their resolution— has been the interest of Talmud scholars from the time of the Tosafists41 until the present. Whereas the Tosafists resolved these discrepancies by explaining differences between the sugyot,42 modern academic Talmud scholars point to

Stam forces previously incompatible legal narratives to fit smoothly within the Stam's halakhic system. Wimpfheimer, Narrating the Law.

39 Boyarin, Socrates and the Fat Rabbis, 167.

40 Ibid.

41 The Tosafists were a group of medieval European Talmud commentators, active from the late 11th century through the early 14th century, united by their commentatorial program rather than by geography. This school begins with the grandsons of Rashi in France in the late 11th century. From the earliest printed editions of the Bavli and onward, the Tosafot (commentaries of the Tosafists) have been printed on the Talmudic page opposite Rashi. Where Rashi's commentary serves the function of explaining each page of the Talmud line by line, phrase by phrase, the Tosafists seek to explain how the current page is understood when compared to other pages in the Bavli that seem to contradict the content found on that page.

42 The Tosafists’ method is simply an extension of (or mimicking of) the Bavli's method for dealing with the same problem.

the evolution of an idea in time as manifested by those discrepancies. Throughout the course of the history of Talmudic commentary, scant attention has been paid, however, to the interactions between different sugyot, otherwise logically or conceptually unrelated, through the language that they share. The literary characteristic of the Bavli upon which my analysis centers is not how the logics of two distinct Bavli sugyot interact with each other, but rather how the logical layer of the Bavli interacts with its poetic layer. By poetic layer I mean the Bavli's mode of expression and, more particularly, its use of rare or ambiguous terminology. Whereas Boyarin separates the voices of the serious and comic within the Bavli asks how the two interact with each other, I demonstrate that the process of finding meaning in any one sugya is necessarily interrupted, altered, and informed by another sugya by virtue of the particular words used to express the logic of the first sugya.43 In doing so, I locate the dialogical force of the Bavli as one manifested in the reader's own attempt to resolve the meaning of each sugya by virtue of another. The Bavli, in contrast to the Yerushalmi,44 has long been considered a book that works toward maintaining contradictory viewpoints rather than resolving them.45 This perspective is an assessment of the Bavli at the level of the sugya and it is the Stam who is the agent of this perspective. However, if one examines the Bavli from the viewpoint of that reader that the Bavli both implies and fashions, then it is not the construction of individual units, but rather the essence of the literary whole, that must be accounted for. The point of inquiry should begin with an analysis not of individual Talmud passages (sugyot), but of the way each sugya operates on its reader within the total experience of the book. For the Global Bavli (henceforth, GB) reader, a reader who does not artificially divide the Bavli's composite components—a reader whose characteristics I will later define at length—no sugya exists outside of its relationship to both another and the whole; consequently, meaning is never found in isolation. If the Stam is the force that constructs meaning in the sugya, then there is another force at work in the construction of the Bavli: the force that conveys meaning at the level of interaction between all of the sugyot found in the Bavli.

43 In this way, I am most impacted by Boyarin's analysis of Plato's dialogues in the first half of Socrates and the Fat Rabbis. Boyarin argues that the dialogues between the characters presented in Plato's works all share one voice, Plato's. Plato's dialogues are therefore not dialogical. What is, however, dialogical about Plato's dialogues is the way the form of the arguments presented in the dialogues interact with the words contained in those dialogues. The words used in Plato's dialogues are all in the service of an argument against Rhetoric (as an intellectual endeavor opposed to Philosophy). Yet, Plato structures those words in the form of the type of arguments he uses those words to argue against. The very structure of Plato's dialogues, overtly expressed as an argument against Rhetoric, themselves bear the mark of the rhetoric they argue against. For Boyarin, it is this facet of Plato's dialogues that is truly dialogical. [Boyarin, Socrates and the Fat Rabbis, 33-132.]

44 i.e. the Palestinian Talmud.

45 See for example Zacharias Frankel, Mevo Ha-Yerushalmi (Breslaṿya: Shleṭṭer, 1870), 28b-45a.

I therefore use the term "Superstam" to denote the force, or literary activity, that is beyond the "Stam." This force is not an anonymous voice but rather no voice at all. It is an effect. And this effect goes far beyond the dialogical interaction between the serious and comic. The Superstam is the force that unifies the Bavli by strategically placing individual words at crucial moments throughout the book, words that are distinctive in their rarity. These individual words, small in number compared to the almost two million words that make up the Bavli, effect an undoing of whatever resolution at which the local text, or Stam, seems to arrive, or drive. The Superstam is that entity that causes a dialogical relationship through the interactions between two sugyot at a moment in which the process of making meaning is still ongoing.46 Instead of focusing on how the Stam works to control the text, this dissertation focuses on how the Superstam works to destabilize the text. Even in those moments of apparent resolution, the Bavli uses linguistic markers that serve to question the conclusions it seems to posit. The final editorial voice of the Bavli, the one that defines how the Bavli operates on its reader's attempts to find meaning, what I call the "Superstam," is not to be found in the overall construction of a sugya. Nor is it to be found in the worldviews that the logical meaning of two separate sugyot seems to espouse. The activity of the Superstam is to be found in a single word, used here or there, that connects individual sugyot in a way that runs counter to the overt scheme or worldview presented in any individual sugya. Once the literary nature of the Bavli is redefined as a textual effect that operates on its implied reader in this manner, the project of discovering when the Bavli was composed is necessarily called into question. If the literary feature that defines how meaning is constructed in the Bavli is seen as an operation involving the choice of a single word or phrase over its possible synonyms, then this activity could have taken place at any time from the very beginnings of the Talmudic era throughout the Geonic period and even up until the time of Rashi or beyond.47 It is my contention that early

46 It is for this reason that I am cautious of fully embracing the Bakhtinian model used by both Boyarin and Wimpfheimer (in Boyarin, Socrates and the Fat Rabbis. and Wimpfheimer, Narrating the Law. Although I am willing to use the words "monological" and "dialogical" in order to engage the work of Boyarin and Wimpfheimer, I feel the need to point out a caveat of using the Bakhtinian definition of these terms when making arguments about the Bavli. Although my work argues for the dialogical relationship between the individual sugya and the Bavli as a whole, I resist Bakhtin's precise definition of what this term means. For Bakhtin, it is the dialogical relationship between different registers of language or speech that is central to his model. If, as I argue, one can only perceive the actual register of a particular sugya in relation to the whole—or through a perception of the whole—then it seems counterintuitive to separate those parts only to say that they are in dialogue with one another. This is especially the case because of the reader-oriented approach I take to assessing what, or more accurately how, the Bavli means. What makes it especially difficult for the reader to separate the part from the whole when reading the Bavli is the fact that the reader sometimes understands the part through the whole and vice versa. The order of reading, and meaning- making, events is fluid and bidirectional and therefore no two separated parts stand individually in contrast to the other.

47 Halivni recognizes that the Bavli was not fixed in its final form, at the level of language, even during the time of the Geonim. David Halivni, “Iyyunim Behithavut HaTalmud,” Sidra 20 (2005): 90-91.

Bavli readers,48 the ones responsible for its transmission to the next set of readers, were affected by a certain aesthetic of word usage first found in the Bavli's modes of reading the Bible (and in the Bible itself). These Biblical reading strategies in turn encouraged the creation of a text (the Bavli) that operates on its own readers in a similar fashion. Facing a text whose sugyot were already fixed by the Stam and culturally canonized, generations of transmitters continued this tradition of reading by altering a word here and there, before transmitting a text only slightly altered quantitatively. However, the alteration of a few words here and there in a text that explicitly asks to be read against and beside itself creates a qualitatively significant new text that comes to be defined by this activity.

The Talmud passages that I treat in this dissertation represent moments of extreme cultural anxiety and undecidability for rabbinic Judaism. How can Moses have written the Torah if the Torah describes his death? How can the court, meting out the death penalty, truly know whether a killer did so intentionally? Can a man prove, in the absence of witnesses, that his wife was not a virgin at the time of their marriage? Is the Biblically sanctioned institution of slavery really a benefit to the slave? How can a man know if his children are his own and not the product of his wife's adultery? Where does rabbinic authority come from and why should it trump the authority of the Priestly caste or the Davidic dynasty? It is in dealing with these questions that one would most expect expressions of ambivalence on the part of the Talmud. This dissertation describes the literary mechanisms through which the Talmud expresses such ambivalence. In doing so, it focuses not on what the Talmud means, but rather on how it means.

The Global Bavli Reader

In order to discover how the Bavli means, I begin my inquiry by trying to understand the reader that the Bavli both anticipates and fashions, a reader I call the Global Bavli (GB) reader. By following the GB reader through an attempt to find meaning in any one sugya, I discover the central role played by individual rare words and their associations with specific disparate sugyot. I then imagine how such a reader might further participate in the transmission of the text. I argue that such readers, acting as writers when transmitting the text, are encouraged by the text itself to further the association between disparate sugyot by introducing a new rare word into the text. I support my argument by citing evidence of historical readers who did in fact operate in

48 By early Bavli readers, I mean readers operating during a time period subsequent to both the activity of the Stam and the placement of sugyot into an ordered collection similar to what we would now call the Bavli. Though it is unclear which of these two processes occurred first.

this manner, substituting rare words or phrases for synonyms that work to affect the further associations between passages for subsequent GB readers. The historical readers I explore, whether from manuscript evidence or the commentatorial tradition, are only those readers who themselves played a central role in the transmission of the Bavli text we have before us. But they may stand in for other, harder-to-trace readers who used these techniques to read and understand if not further shape the text. The heuristic GB reader I explore can be understood either as a timeless reader or a reader who exists at any moment in time—whether this reader be a contemporary American reader, a nineteenth century Lithuanian reader, a fourteenth century European reader, or an eleventh century North African reader. The GB reader can even be an Iraqi reader living in the time of the Geonim.49 What is important for an exploration of this reader is an understanding of where, or how, this reader is situated. Although, historically, most Global Bavli readers might have been male Jewish heterosexual rabbis, my research seeks to explore this reader outside of the implications of identity politics. For my analysis, what situates the GB reader is a knowledge of, and viewpoint internal to, the Bavli—and only that. The biases of gender, sexual orientation, or perhaps even social or economic class are secondary to the Bavli's discourse system. What is central to the concept of the GB reader is only that this reader operates in a context somewhat removed from both the time period and precise dialect50 in which the sugyot of the Bavli were initially constructed.51 Those sugyot constructed by the Stam are encountered by the GB reader, who in turn becomes the Superstam, only in the context of the Bavli.52

49 Roughly late-sixth through early-eleventh centuries. The academy at Pumpedita, originally headed by the Amora Rav Yehudah the son of Yeḥezkel (d. ca. 300), still flourished at the same site in the early eleventh century. The academy at Sura, originally headed by the first generation Amora Rav (a.k.a. Abba Arikha, d. ca. 250), still flourished at the same site in the early eleventh century as well. Other Amoraic Talmudic academies did not survive into the Geonic period.

50 I will later argue that Aḥai of Sabha Gaon [eighth century, author of the She'iltot] was such a reader. A useful analogy might be to imagine the experience of a modern-day American, or even British, reader reading the King James Bible. Though such a reader might speak the same language as the author's of the King James translation of the Bible, many of the words contained within the King James Bible would be foreign to the ordinary spoken language of such a reader.

51 It is this notion of a reader who is somewhat removed from the initial context that is at the heart of the project of Halivni's multi-volume Sources and Traditions. Halivni tries to recover an initial "source" which was misread by the "tradition" due to a certain distance between the source's originator and the tradition transmitting it. Halivni, Sources and Traditions, 7-19.

52 I will argue, in later chapters, that the subversive effect of language usage found in the Bavli, an effect I detail throughout this dissertation, is the result of the participation of centuries of contributors who all live at a distance from the historical construction of Talmudic materials. These transmitters of a structurally fixed Talmudic text also act as editors. Once the core structure of the Talmud was fixed, these transmitters continued the process of Talmudic self-questioning through the mechanism of altering words at key intervals. I must admit that I am not yet clear as to how to properly date this time period.

I describe the ideal reader demanded by the text as the Global Bavli reader for two reasons. First, I contrast this reader to a local reader. Whereas a local reader finds meaning in a text in the manner Fraenkel imagines, reading the text in isolation, the GB reader understands each local passage of the Bavli only as a part of a whole. Second, the GB reader does not experience the Bavli in a linear fashion, as the uninterrupted flow of words on a flat plane. Rather the GB reader is constantly driven from an attempt at linear reading by the non-linear mode through which the Bavli expresses its ideas. The Bavli ensures that any linear attempt to understand a sugya is simply unviable. Sugyot, by virtue of their construction, resist self-containment, always pointing their reader, whether implicitly or explicitly, outside of their boundaries. Therefore, the GB reader cannot experience the Bavli by walking down a straight line, but rather must do so as if bouncing around the inside of a sphere —the globe-shaped Bavli. The primary characteristic feature of the GB reader is that of a reader who reads the Bavli both through and against itself, a reader who understands each sugya only through its relationship to the entire book. The Bavli’s use of words and concepts in each individual sugya assumes that its reader is fluent a priori with the Bavli in its entirety. The Bavli is laid out in such a way that the reader cannot understand page one without having already read the entire book. It is not uncommon for the Bavli to refer to some information necessary for understanding the logical flow of the text by appealing to information that has not yet been presented in the linear flow of the text, even if this information is only found hundreds of pages, or a number of tractates, later.53

Who are these Global Bavli readers and how do they read? The word the Bavli gîrsāʾ). Although this verb means to read, it also) גירסא uses to denote "reading" is simultaneously means: to recite; transmit; edit; mash; break down; and chew. These are gîrsāʾ). In ancient Jewish culture, all) גירסא not merely alternate translations for the word of these processes were perceived as the same activity. It is this consumptive, digestive, and generative aspect of reading the Bavli that I explicate, especially as it relates to the unique relationship between reader and writer that the Bavli fosters. The most difficult aspect of understanding the GB reader's attempt to find meaning in the text is disentangling this reader from the commentary of Rashi. Rashi's monumental work has become such an integral part of the Bavli reading tradition that in most instances the Bavli text we have before us already represents the inextricable gîrsāʾ), altering) גירסא product of Rashi's historical intervention. It is Rashi's practice of the text as he reads and transmits it, that makes it so difficult to recover the text he

53 I will address such an instance at length in Chapter 3.

himself was actually reading. Consequently, any attempt to construct a heuristic pre- Rashi or extra-Rashi reader has severe limitations. However, in trying to uncover a pre- Rashi, or extra-Rashi, reader it is helpful to understand the reader that Rashi wishes to engage, assist, and control. Therefore, a taxonomy of Rashi's commentary on the Bavli, as well as an understanding of Rashi's intervention with his reader, serves well to highlight the characteristics of the Bavli's implied reader, a pre-Rashi or extra-Rashi reader.54 The main function of Rashi's commentary is to elucidate the text—to explain what the text "means." Therefore, the Bavli's implied reader does not yet know what the text means when reading it. Aside from elucidating the Talmudic text, Rashi's commentary provides three other functions: (a) it provides a French translation for extremely rare words; (b) it points out situations where what might seem like a question is in fact an answer, or vice versa;55 (c)it provides a certain temporal guidance that somewhat controls the linearity of the reading experience.56 Rashi's commentary is therefore (a) designed for a reader who already understands how the Talmud's logical formats work and therefore needs guidance only when the Talmud deviates from its usual course; (b) this reader also knows the lexical meaning of all but the rarest of words; and (c) this reader sometimes needs temporal guidance in navigating the linear reading experience. This reader, both trained by the text and in sync with its reading tradition, must nonetheless struggle with unmet logical expectations and with confusing temporal At first glance,expectations. this might Although seem likethe Bavlian unrealistic, presents itselfor even linearly illogical,—one expectation word, sentence, on the orpart thought of its authors/editors.at a time—its implied Yet if readerone thinks exists of outside the Bavli of, in or terms above, of time. a narrative The G circleB reader rather is than a storyline,paradoxically the readingexpected experien to bothce know as well and as not the know content the ofBavli the inBavli its entirety.begins to This form reader a logic ofis omniscientits own. This but dissertation must simultaneously begins to explainsuspend a that traditional omniscience style ofin readingorder to asproperly practiced andexperience perpetuated reading through the Bavli the literary one word form at aof time. the Talmud An internal itself. reader In turn, of thean analysisBavli, without of the themodes assistance and effects of guidebooks, of this type must of reading understand demonstrates intricate howconcepts the Bavli, explained rather only than hundreds the ofsugya pages, was later authored in order— toas followa text writtenthe linear by flowits own of anreaders. argument on any given page. Yet, at the same time, this reader must remain ignorant of the answer to the question being raised on the page being read in order for that question to make sense as an authentic question. It is this delicate balance between linear and non-linear reading that is at the core of the concept of the GB reader.

54 Rashi himself is a perfect example of a GB reader. His participation in Super-stammaitic activity will be addressed throughout this dissertation.

Did it not say in a) והתניא mildly) to alert a reader that) בניחותא Two examples: When Rashi uses the term 55 Baraita?/As it says in a Baraita...) is to be read as a support for the previous statement rather than as a in wonderment) to signal a that a particular) בתמיה question on that statement. Or, when he uses the term statement is to counter-intuitively be read as a question.

an idiomatic phrase) קא סלקא דעתך will be explained later on) or) מפרש לקמן As when Rashi comments 56 signaling that what is being expressed is just an initial hypothesis that will be later refuted).

The second defining feature of the GB Bavli reader involves how this reader confronts the language of the text. Historical linguists approach the meaning of words in an ancient text diachronically— through an understanding of cognate languages and the evolution (or imagined evolution) of those languages. For example, an Iranist would figure out the meaning of an obscure Middle Persian word through a comparison with similar words found in Armenian, Avestan, Parthian, and Sogdian. In contrast, the GB reader constructs meaning in the text horizontally, as it were, rather than vertically. This reader uses an understanding of how particular words and phrases are used elsewhere in the Bavli when attempting to make sense of local sentences and passages. The reader to whom I refer does not cull philological understanding of a word's meaning from lexicons,57 or a knowledge of Syriac, Greek, or Persian, but rather from a semantic approach based on word derivation—how a word, or word root, is used in the Bible or Talmud itself. The GB reader's approach to philology is thus synchronic and intratextual rather than diachronic and extratextual. A synchronic philological interpretive method incorporates a number of approaches to semantic understanding (discussed at length in chapter 3) and then weighs and balances the various factors contributed by those approaches. A synchronic philological approach, out of necessity, begins with word derivation and then moves outward to the particular form of a word root (its conjugation or declension), its local contextual usage, and finally, its global contextual usage throughout the literary canon. However, all of these interpretive stages act as feedback mechanisms for each other. There is therefore a cyclical relationship between the reader's initial confrontation with an ambiguous or rare term—what a word's root means when used throughout the Bible and Talmud—and the subsequent correction of that initial mis/understanding through an appeal to the term's use in other Talmud passages. A reader who breaks a word down into "root" and "form" is still left only to understand that root and form based on the word's usage elsewhere in the canon. In exploring the GB reader's attempt to navigate the Bavli, this dissertation focuses on two linguistic mechanisms featured in the Bavli—ambiguity and trigger words—and their impact on the experience of the GB reader. The first part of this dissertation deals with two aspects of ambiguity as it relates to the GB reader. The first is the role that ambiguous terminology plays in driving the non-linearity of the GB reader's interaction with the text. The second is how ambiguous terminology works to express the Bavli's ambivalence toward its own rhetorical or logical arguments. The second part of this dissertation deals with the effect of "trigger words" on the GB reader's experience of the text. I contend that the Bavli's implied reader has a heightened awareness when encountering rare words or phrases in reading a local text. The occurrence of the "trigger words" in the local text activates, for the reader, other Bavli passages, in which these trigger words appear. I call these activated passages simultexts. This dissertation examines the subversive impact of those activated simultexts on the meaning of the local

57 The first Talmudic lexicon, the ʿArukh, was produced by Nathan the son of Yeḥiel of Rome in the mid- 11th century.

passage being read. In doing so, I demonstrate that the monologizing force of the Stam of the sugya is undermined by the activity of the Superstam. By creating subversive linguistic associations, the Superstam dialogizes the meaning of the sugya when read in isolation with the meaning of the sugya when read in the global Bavli context.

Outline and Summary of Chapters

In chapter one, I examine the role that both linguistic and logical ambiguity play in altering the linearity of the reading experience; and thereby, how linguistic ambiguity affects the reader's mode of finding meaning in a text. I do so by exploring the space of the reader, where the reader is positioned vis-à-vis the text. If one were to read a literal translation of the Bible, then it would not be too difficult to follow the basic outline of the story being told. However, the Bavli is a text that presents itself to its reader in quite a different manner. A literal translation of the Bavli would be incomprehensible to its reader by virtue of the Bavli's laconic mode of expression. Bavli readers must insert themselves between the words of the text and supply the information that is missing. The result is twofold: First, the Bavli requires a highly active reader, a reader whose reading process is an act of writing. Second, the reader is forced to experience the text from a vantage point that is internal to the text. The examination of both linguistic and logical ambiguity in this chapter also details how a reader, when confronting ambiguity, is sometimes compelled to reread backwards into the text to resolve the ambiguity. Throughout the dissertation, I argue that the GB reader must oscillate between numerous vantage points while attempting to work through the text one word at a time. This reader is therefore never really able to fix the intent of a text long enough to say what it means. The textual activity characteristic of the Superstam is both a product and cause of this phenomenon. By forcing its reader inside the text, between its words, and into the position of writer, the Bavli encourages its transmitters to alter the text according to those rules the reader understands from the text itself. This is especially the case for the period of Bavli transmission prior to the advent of the printing press (in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries), but more so before Rashi's dominant commentary tried to establish a fixed version of the Bavli. In the first chapter, I examine the reading processes of several historical Bavli readers and their attempts to decipher a Baraita58 dealing with the question of Moses's authorship of the Torah.59 In doing so, I detail the effect of both a linguistic and a logical

58 The word Baraita means "outside," meaning outside of the canon. A Baraita is a text that is formally similar to a Mishnah. The only difference between the two is that the Mishnah was canonized while the Baraitot (plural of Baraita were not.

59 Throughout this dissertation I make extensive use of a broad range of alternate versions of the Talmud in demonstrating that the activity that I define as characteristic of the Superstam, though waning as times go 19

ambiguity on the production of two nearly identical Bavli passages whose slight variations bear the mark of their reader's attempts to map meaning onto those ambiguities. The logical ambiguity results from the fact that the Bavli contains no punctuation and therefore requires its reader to intone the text in a manner that makes sense. One result of this requisition—and therefore a ubiquitous feature of the Bavli—is the fact that "yes" and "no" can mean the same thing depending on how one intones the word. The linguistic ambiguity found in the parallel Baraitot texts I treat in chapter one, while the product of an early layer of the Talmudic text, provides a model for how future readers/writers express ambivalence toward a highly fraught moment of religious and cultural anxiety—in this case, the authorship, authority, and authenticity of the Torah. The type of linguistic ambiguity that I explore throughout the first half of this dissertation most closely resembles the seventh type detailed by William Empson in Seven Types of Ambiguity, a work generally considered to be one of the most influential works of literary criticism of the twentieth century.60 According to Empson, the seventh type of ambiguity occurs when an author expresses ambivalence by using one word to say two opposite things at once.61 Empson makes a fascinating observation about the emergence of this type of linguistic ambiguity in late-sixteenth century English poetry, ascribing the advent and prevalence of this type of ambiguity to the Hebrew scholarship of the great poets of that era.62 These poets, as readers of the Bible, were induced to express themselves using a prominent literary feature found in the Bible, linguistic ambiguity. Similarly, this dissertation argues that in significant moments of cultural

on, indeed takes place throughout history and is even is to be found in the most recent printed editions. In so doing, I provide examples of Superstammaitic activity in those versions of the Talmud found in Geonic writings (roughly 7th through 11th centuries, Babylonia), commentaries of the Rishonim (roughly 11th through 15th centuries, Europe and North Africa), medieval manuscripts, as well as the textual variations found in the major printed editions (beginning in the late 15th century, Europe), including the Vilna Shas (published in the 1880s, Lithuania).

60 (1906-1984, Great Britain)

61 Empson does not actually use the word "ambivalence." (See footnote 128)

62 William Empson, Seven Types of Ambiguity (New Directions Publishing, 1966), 193- 194.

The study of Hebrew, by the way, and the existence of English Bibles with alternatives in the margin, may have had influence on the capacity of English for ambiguity; Donne, Herbert, Jonson, and Crashaw, for instance, were Hebrew scholars, and the flowering of poetry at the end of the sixteenth century corresponded with the first thorough permeation of the English language by translated texts. This is of interest because Hebrew, having very unreliable tenses, extraordinary idioms, and a strong taste for puns, possesses all the poetical advantages of a thorough primitive disorder.

Empson continues to explain, via Freud, how and why primitive languages are rife with ambiguity. Ibid. 20

undecidability, moments when one would expect expressions of ambivalence and tension, the Bavli expresses that ambivalence through the use of ambiguity. My second chapter treats two instances of this type of ambiguity as they relate to two problems the rabbis faced in practically adjudicating important social issues in accordance with biblically sanctioned protocols. The first example of chapter two describes the effect of a superfluous ambiguous phrase on the reader's understanding of a legal discussion dealing with how to assess a killer's motives. The Bible requires a killer to be punished according to his intention. The Bavli expresses ambivalence about the juridical practicality of such a law by inserting a superfluous ambiguous phrase within a discussion of how the circumstances of a killer's actions are to be used to measure his motivation. Although the linear and logical flow of the passage appear to arrive at a conclusion that resolves the problem of how the court should go about making such assessment, an ambiguous phrase, nested in the text, works to undermine the rhetoric of the text. This superfluous ambiguity is presented in the form of a description of an apparently incidental action performed by one of the rabbis engaged in debating the issue in this sugya. The Bavli's ambiguous description of the rabbi's action leaves the reader wondering about the rabbi’s intention in performing the act. The ambiguity therefore works to highlight the reader's inability to understand motivations simply based on viewing an act. The ambiguous description of this rabbi's action does not impact the reader as part of the logical flow of the debate, but rather operates as the reader moves linearly through the arguments presented in the sugya. For the reader, following the flow of those arguments, the ambiguity serves as a constant reminder that intention cannot be assessed by action. The fact that the ambiguous phrase in question is non-essential to the logic, or rhetorical flow, of the arguments presented in sugya—yet at the same time undermines the very argument-driven conclusion of the sugya—raises the question of who exactly placed the ambiguous phrase in the text of the sugya. The Stam has been described as a controlling force, the product of a person or group of people who take pre-existing components, alter their original intent and context, in order to craft, out of those components, a sugya that promotes or conforms to a particular worldview. In this instance, we have a highly crafted sugya that appears to be designed to reach a positive conclusion as to how to assess the intention of a killer. The placement of a two-word, apparently superfluous, ambiguous phrase within the sugya is not an attempt to re-craft the sugya. The sugya has already been fixed in form. However, the placement of the superfluous ambiguous phrase within the sugya serves the function of expressing ambivalence about the positivistic attitude expressed in the sugya. It is unclear precisely both when this phrase became part of the text we now read and by whom it was placed. However, it is clear that this type of literary activity does not bear the mark of the Stam according to any of the current definitions of the nature of the Stam's literary agenda. It is herein that I locate the activity of the Superstam. When non-essential individual words work to undermine the logical aim of a sugya, words that act to subvert the control of the Stam but do not recognizably alter the structure of the passage, I label this activity as the work of the Superstam—a literary activity that is above and against the Stam.

The second example of chapter two also deals with an ambiguous phrase that marks an extreme moment of cultural anxiety. How reliably can the court assess virginity claims? The Biblical system lays out a protocol for the legislation of scenarios where a man marries a woman and claims that he discovered that she was not a virgin at the time of their marriage. However, the rabbis recognized that the system is flawed.63 In the second example of chapter two, I show how the Bavli uses ambiguous terminology to undercut the rhetorical drive of its own brief discussion of the matter in tractate Niddah. In this example, the reader encounters terminology whose literal meaning implies the opposite of what the reader expects within the linear flow of the Bavli's argument. This second example incorporates the concepts of the GB reader and trigger words as they relate to the reader's attempt to resolve the meaning of a polysemous phrase. It is only the GB reader's understanding of the way that this rare phrase is used in a second Bavli passage that allows this reader to follow the logic of the local sugya and thus avoid the confusion fostered by the phrase's literal meaning. Yet another occurrence of this rare phrase, in a third Bavli passage, works in concert with the other two passages to construct a web of ambivalent expression. Chapter three continues to explore the concepts introduced in the first two chapters by dealing with an expression of unease regarding the biblically sanctioned institution of slavery. In this instance, a Bavli sugya directly refers, within the linear flow of its argument, to a fact only established in a later tractate. A source critical analysis of the relationship between the two passages would argue that the statement about the previously established fact is merely a later addition to the earlier sugya. However, the recurrence of this phenomenon in the Bavli provides a basis for understanding the complexity of the notion of linearity and temporality as it relates to the GB reader's attempt to find meaning in the Bavli. In this example, an ambiguous phrase functions in the exact opposite manner than that which was detailed in chapter 2. The ambiguous phrase relating to the benefits of slavery does not serve the function of undermining the logic of the local sugya being read, but rather serves to call into question the "established" conclusion of the second sugya appearing in the later tractate. Chapters four and five serve to demonstrate how the Superstam provides for a similar subversive effect, for the GB reader, through the use of rare terminology that is not necessarily ambiguous or polysemous. I call this the trigger word/simultext reading effect. It is central to my argument that the Superstam's activity pervades both those sugyot considered as halakhic and aggadic. Therefore chapter four scrutinizes an aggadic story dealing with the problem of verifying the paternity of one's child and chapter five deals with one of the longest halakhic sugyot in the Bavli, one that quite extensively addresses virginity claims. In each of these sugyot, rare words or phrases, "trigger words," operate on the GB reader to activate other sugyot, simultexts, throughout the Bavli.64

63 I will later, in chapter five, treat the Bavli's expression of this anxiety (as found in tractate Ketubot) at great length. 64 This effect resembles Ziva Ben-Porat's description of how a reader interprets "the literary allusion." Ben- Porat differentiates between "allusion in general" and "the literary allusion" and describes a four stage 22

The example provided in chapter 4 makes use of a medieval manuscript that obviously replaces one trigger word for another in a manner that demonstrates that this Bavli reader/writer was not only shaped by the trigger word/simultext effect in this instance, but also tried to use the mechanism of that effect to undo the effect. The existence of this type of “Super-stammaitic” textual tweaking at such a late date (probably twelfth or thirteenth century CE) raises further questions about the authorship of the Bavli. It is my contention that the layer of the Bavli text that most powerfully conveys meaning to the Bavli's implied reader was not authored in any of the various manners that have been proposed by scholars thus far. Rather, the Bavli is the result of a culture of reading and writing that grows out of the associative manner in which the rabbis read the Bible, an often condensed, repetitive, and ambiguous text, as Empson remarks. These biblical readers in turn composed a text, the Bavli, that lends itself to the type of reading that they themselves perform on the Bible. Subsequent generations of readers of the Bavli, for many hundreds of years, joined in this process by replacing words with synonyms in a manner that encourages the reader to form associations between particular Bavli passages that elicit a particular effect. These networks of associations, formed by the recurrence of rare terminology, generally cause the reader to question the logical conclusion of the individual passage being read. Chapter 6 takes the risk of overwhelming my reader with a preponderance of evidence demonstrating the pervasiveness of the trigger word/simultext reading effect for the GB reader. In this chapter, I follow a reading strategy that I also explore while treating the paternity story of chapter four. I first read the story hyper-locally, then in its immediate extended context, and then in the (global) context of the Bavli. By comparing these three modes, I demonstrate the instability of a sugya's "meaning"—and therefore the Stam's control over that meaning—when the sugya is read as part of the sugyot in the Bavli activated by linguistic elements of the original sugya. In my example in this chapter, all three modes demonstrate what is to be gained by careful attention to the Bavli's use of language in a story dealing with a number of different social strata struggling for power. My global reading of this story shows how nearly fifty rare trigger words, working in combinations, link seven simultexts. Through the association of these passages, a struggle for power is waged between representatives of nearly every single

process where "the literary allusion is a device for the simultaneous activation of two texts." [Ziva Ben- Porat, “The Poetics of Literary Allusion,” ed. Benjamin Hrushovski, PTL: A Journal for Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Literature 1 (1976): 107.] Ben-Porat has a very precise conception of how a reader must move forth in four stages between the two texts. Ben-Porat only labels an allusion a "literary allusion" when a reader responds in that very particular manner. The essential distinction, for our purposes, between the trigger word/simultext reading effect I describe and Ben-Porat's description of literary allusion is that I do not ascribe a hierarchical relationship between what she calls the "alluding" and "alluded to" texts. It is Ben-Porat's understanding of that hierarchical relationship between the texts (as well as the type of authors or poets she works with) that leads her to require that a reader to be subjected to this impact in such a specific way in order for the process to be labeled "literary allusion." [For treatment of Ben-Porat, see Benjamin D. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40-66 (Stanford University Press, 1998), 6-26.

social class presented in the Bavli: the rabbi; the woman; the exilarch; the minor; the president; the slave; the priest; the king; and the member of the Davidic dynasty.

Implications of the Global Bavli Reader

As previously mentioned, the GB reader, when encountering rare terminology anywhere in the Bavli, has a heightened awareness of the other occurrences of that rare term elsewhere throughout the Bavli. Shamma Friedman has accounted for, from a compositional perspective, the persistence and recurrence of rare terminology in the Bavli. Certain sugyot within the Bavli borrow terminology from other sugyot in the Bavli as source material for the construction of new sugyot. While from a source critical perspective, Friedman has explained why it is that certain Bavli passages contain 65 common rare terminology,64F from a reader's perspective, common rare terminology is far more important than the reasons why they are there. A description of the trigger word/simultext reading effect attempts to explore the linguistic feature of the Bavli that Friedman has already pointed out in such a way that brackets the chronological narrative of the Bavli’s evolution and focuses on the final literary product: “the Bavli.” Friedman’s method relies on the assumption that the source critic can trace the individual moves of a text’s evolution by both paying careful attention to the rough edges left behind in the editorial process and examining the relevant parallel texts. I assert that the editorial history of the Bavli is far more complex than the shifts and alterations that can be discerned by culling clues left behind by the editors in the form of rough edges and parallel texts. In approaching the Bavli synchronically and from the perspective of its closure) to the entire Bavli) סגירות implied reader I seek to expand Fraenkel’s notion of rather than to any one story within it. In doing so, I demonstrate that if, as Friedman argues, there is creative “reworking” in the Bavli, then it is an activity that extends beyond the parameters of the story unit, or even the sugya. The Bavli as a whole is shaped and defined by this activity, and its readers participate in it as fully as those redactors whose activities they follow. The GB reader does not encounter the text through its historical layering. While the source critic takes primary interest in the textual author and the process of authorship, a reader is interested in the book itself in its final state. The source critic sees the Bavli diachronically. In contrast, the reader that I explore experiences the totality of the Bavli as a body of literature that is spherically shaped, self-referential, and self-contradictory, in no particular order. An exploration of the reader’s experience of the Bavli serves to

65 “a secondary aggadic text often makes extended use of existing expressions and turns of phrase. Verbose use of stereotypic Talmudic vocabulary can be a marker of late narrative.” Friedman, “The Further Adventures of Rav Kahana,” 248.

highlight an aspect of the Bavli that has been underrepresented in modern Talmud scholarship: how the Bavli conveys its meaning rather than how the Bavli came to be. Nevertheless, an emphasis on the Bavli's mode of imparting meaning, as seen from the vantage point of the global Bavli reader, can, in turn, lead to a new conception of how the Bavli came to be.

PART I: AMBIGUITY

Chapter One: The Effect of the Ambiguous Phrase on the Linearity of the Reading Process

In this ideal text, the networks are many and intact, without one of them being able to surpass the rest; this text is a galaxy of signifiers, not a structure of signifieds; it has no beginning; it is reversible; we gain access to it by several entrances, none of which can be authoritatively declared to be the main one; the codes it mobilizes extend as the eye can reach, they are indeterminable (meaning here is never subject to a principle of determination, unless by throwing dice); the systems of meaning can take over this absolutely plural text, but their number is never closed, based as it is on the infinity of language.

Roland Barthes, S/Z (Macmillan, 1975), 5-6. (emphasis mine)

Once we get beyond Barthes's obfuscating formulation we can more readily focus on his message: imagining an ideal text. Barthes's ideal text exists, for him, merely hypothetically. However, it is a reality for readers of the Bavli. It is my argument that the Babylonian Bavli is the ultimate work of literature upon which to base all theories of "readerly" and " writerly" texts. The Bavli, whose massive bindings test and expand the limitations of genres is ultimately a genre unto itself. This genre serves to blur the imagined lines between reader and writer. As so, it invites and encourages its reader to write in a manner which destabilizes meaning in response to the text. This invitation, however, is carefully mitigated by the Bavli's complex language system. This system, utilizing ambiguity and word triggers to engage its reader in a cyclical quest for meaning, expands the parameters of Barthes's conception of the role of the reader on the writerly text. The disparate literary mechanisms through which the Bavli evokes its world has heretofore born only cursory scholarly attempts at defining their significance and signification process. I therefore seek to begin the work of reading the Bavli at the level of words. This work is designed to display an as yet unexplored level of the Bavli's literary art: the effects of ambiguity and trigger words on the Bavli's implied reader. While the first part of this dissertation focuses on the role ambiguity plays in this reader's attempt to map meaning on the text, the second part addresses the effect of trigger words on this reader's experience of the text. In both parts I demonstrate how the Bavli encourages its reader to write the text while reading, furthering the process of the text through its transmission. I begin with an examination of the space the reader occupies while reading the text.

Understanding the Space of the Reader

In assessing the difference between, on the one hand, object and observer, and on the other hand, reader and text, Wolfgang Iser explains:

We always stand outside the given object, whereas we are situated inside the literary text. The relation between text and reader is therefore quite different from that between object and observer: instead of a subject-object relationship, there is a moving viewpoint which travels along inside that which it has to apprehend. This mode of grasping an object is unique to literature.66

It is this feature of the literary text that encourages "a dynamic interaction between text and reader."67 This interaction takes place from within the text and the reader therefore never experiences the text as a whole from the outside. Rather, the reader experiences the text from the inside, from the perspective of a wandering viewpoint.68 This viewpoint changes based on where the reader stands within the "time- flow" of the reading process. Building on the work of Husserl on the inner consciousness of time, Iser explains that the reading process is one of expectations that are constantly modified. In this way, the wandering viewpoint, when forward looking, gives rise to new expectations but additionally alters the meaning of what has already been read in the past. While Iser assumes a linear perspective, the rhetorical structure of the Babylonian Bavli69 overtly assumes a reader that has a non-linear relationship to time. On the first page of any given tractate the Bavli can ask "how can you say X if we have already said Y later in the tractate?" Often the question might even be posed regarding a tractate that appears hundreds of pages later. The Bavli expects its reader to have already read that other tractate. Therefore, the ideal Bavli reader does not move along the

66 Wolfgang Iser, The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980), 109.

67 Ibid., 107.

68 As Iser explains the aforementioned quotation, he uses "wandering viewpoint" rather than "moving viewpoint." As we will see, "wandering viewpoint" is a better phrase to use to describe the GB reader's interaction with the text.

69 Hereafter referred to as the Bavli.

trajectory of a line but rather reads as if bouncing around the inside of a sphere. To complicate matters, the Bavli also requires its reader to engage, to a certain degree, in a suspension of omniscience. The reader is expected to understand the question being posed on the page being read as if this reader does not already know the answer, even though the reader is, at the same time, expected to know the obscure reference to a later tractate. The balance of these two expectations is a complex operation and can only be understood within a framework that conceives of both the Bavli and the practice of its reading as a process that neither starts nor ends.70 Despite its unique nature, the Bavli, as a text that paradoxically assumes that its reader has read it cover to cover before having opened the book, is actually the perfect model for understanding how readers make meaning within any literary canon. A reader reading within a canon does not experience the texts that make up that canon in the order of their production but rather in the somewhat random order of their consumption. Yet, the reader tries to find meaning in the text being read by appealing to information previously acquired, even if found in texts produced at a later point in time. The consumption of the information in the text being read, in turn, alters the reader's conception of the texts previously read. This process continues for each new text read and the meaning of all previously read texts is therefore constantly revised.71 In this way

70 For a discussion of the distinction between "the Bavli" as book and "Bavli" as act see Sergey Dolgopolski, What is Bavli? (Fordham University Press, 2008).

71 In this manner, studying the Bavli is similar to Otto Neurath's understanding of philosophy of science and language as an attempt to rebuild a decaying boat while at sea. One always starts reading the Bavli in the middle, as if out at sea, never starting from firm ground. It is only by replacing previous misconceptions and repairing faulty ideas that one moves forward in understanding the Talmudic texts that one has already read. [Additionally Neurath's advocacy of semantic holism, that one only understands a word in the context of the whole language, works very well with how I explain, in later chapters, the way in which the GB reader makes sense of each individual passage in relation to the whole book.] Neurath's analogy (commonly referred to as "Neurath's Ship") was popularized by W. V. O. Quine. In Word and Object, Quine writes, "Neurath has likened science to a boat which, if we are to rebuild it, we must rebuild plank by plank while staying afloat in it." [Willard Van Orman Quine, Word and Object (MIT Press, 1960), 3.] [For Neurath's formulation and the context for his analogy, see Otto Neurath, “Protocol Sentences,” in Logical Positivism, ed. Alfred Jules Ayer, trans. George Schick (Simon and Schuster, 1959), 201. Keith Stanovich elaborates on what he calls "a Neurathian project of skeptical bootstrapping":

Philosopher Otto Neurath (1932-33; see Quine 1960, 3-4) employed the metaphor of a boat which had some rotten planks. The best way to repair the planks would be to bring the boat ashore, stand on firm ground, and replace the planks. But what if the boat could not be brought ashore? Actually, the boat could still be repaired, but at some risk. We could repair the planks at sea by standing on some planks while repairing others. The project could work—we could repair the boat without being on the firm foundation of ground. The project is not guaranteed, however, because we might choose to stand on a rotten plank.

[Keith E. Stanovich, The Robot’s Rebellion: Finding Meaning in the Age of Darwin (University of Chicago Press, 2005), 180.] I thank Yechiel Bar-Ilan for directing me to this analogy. 29

the process of finding meaning in a text never ends and the meaning found in any given text is a time-bound event.72 The Bavli represents an extreme example of a text that forces its reader into a highly active role. As such, it highlights the role of the reader in ways that might go both unnoticed and undefined in other forms of literature. An examination of the experience of the reader of the Bavli trying to make sense of the temporal flow of words on the page is therefore, as an exemplary instance, a perfect heuristic device for demonstrating how any reader tries to make meaning within a canon. This chapter focuses on two aspects of the reading experience: the effect of linguistic ambiguity on the process of finding meaning in a text; and, more specifically, the role linguistic ambiguity plays in altering the linearity of the reading experience. I present a case study of a Bavli passage that contains a single ambiguous phrase and examine how the ambiguity of that single phrase defines the experience of reading that particular text. By exploring the linear reading process, one word or sentence at a time, I argue that the Bavli is a book defined by subtle literary mechanisms that encourage its reader to rewrite it in an endless attempt to map meaning on the text. To present my argument, I first examine the impact that expectations have on the process of reading. I then break down the reading process and contrast the distinct role that logical and linguistic ambiguities respectively play on the act of finding meaning in a text. By first appealing to the practices of real readers—historical readers—I lay the foundation for the theoretical reader that I construct in later chapters.

Is There a Difference Between Life and Death in the Bavli?

The reader I explore is a reader defined by the explicit expectations of the Bavli. The Bavli leads its reader to anticipate a certain logical flow to the text. In this manner, the reader of the Bavli, when reading linearly, understands the direction that the Bavli will go before assessing how the Bavli actually moved in that direction. For example, on a page this reader already [לא] "when the Bavli reader encounters the letters "N O knows that "Yes" is meant. In response to the letters "N O" the Bavli reader merely rhetorically inflects "No? But surely yes!" In this way, layers of meaning come prior to reading. However, texts are made up of words that carry more semantic content than the words "yes" and "no." The content of those words therefore supplies additional meaning subsequent to the initial reading process. But once read, these new words, digested linearly, are then written into the text giving rise to new expectations. These new expectations are then thwarted by the introduction of the next word or phrase on the page. The interplay between meaning and reading—and reading and writing—is not the result of a linear sequence of ideas that reach a conclusion, but rather the undoing of

72 For "meaning as event" see Stanley Fish, “Literature in the Reader: Affective Stylistics,” New Literary History 2, no. 1 (Autumn 1970): 123-162.

conclusions as the result of the interplay between the text, previous knowledge, the subsequent rewritten text, and subsequent reading. The Bavli as a book that never starts nor ends, as a book that gives rise to expectations that are always adjusted and frustrated by the digestion of the next word on the page, and as a text that is constantly rewritten by its reader, is the ideal text through which to explore the non-linearity of the time-bound reading experience, the texts they produce, and the instability of meaning, in general. The text I will examine appears in the Bavli at two separate locations. These two parallel Bavli passages, in their entirety, are nearly identical aside from the seemingly opposite questions that begin each discussion. Much like the previous example of the role that "yes" and "no" might play in the GB reader's attempt to find meaning, the words "dead" and "alive" in the following Bavli passage might work in a similar manner. The fact that the rest of the Bavli passage which follows each of these seemingly opposite questions is nearly identical highlights the role that ambiguity plays in the meaning making process. In treating the parallel Bavli passages, I deal both with the fact that two opposite words can seem to mean the same thing and that one word can yield opposing meanings. It is this aspect of the reading experience that I explore in this chapter. Both Baba Batra 15a and Menaḥot 30a introduce parallel Baraitot73 that points to an incongruity between the assumption that Moses wrote the Torah74 and the fact that the news of his death is reported in the very book which he has purportedly written.75

Baba Batra 15a Menaḥot 30a "And Moses, servant of God, died there..." "And Moses, servant of God, died there..." (Deuteronomy 34:5). Is it possible that (Deuteronomy 34:5). Is it possible that Moses was dead and yet wrote "And Moses was alive and yet wrote "And Moses died"! Moses died"!

Both texts identify the same contradiction. Given the assumption that Moses wrote the Torah how is it possible that he wrote this verse? The Baba Batra text asks this question by pointing to the physical impossibility of writing after one's own death. How can Moses have been dead when he wrote "And Moses died"? The Menaḥot text, in

73 A Baraita is a Tannaitic text, quoted in the Bavli, which is not a Mishnah. The era of the Tannaim spans the period roughly between 50 BCE and 200 CE, with sparing mention of a few earlier Sages. A Mishnah is a Tannaitic compilation redacted by Rabbi Judah the Prince at the end of this period. There were many non-canonical versions of similar Tannaitic compilations in existence in the minds of the creators of the Bavli. When such texts are quoted they are deemed Baraitot. Despite the fact that Baraitot remain "outside" of the canon of Rabbi Judah the Prince (the Mishnah), the Bavli does not necessarily give authoritative credence to a Mishnah over a Baraita in instances when they contradict each other.

74 The Pentateuch.

75 It is interesting to note that Spinoza was not the first person to be troubled by this problem [See Chapter 8 of Benedictus de Spinoza, Theological-Political Treatise, trans. Samuel Shirley and Seymour Feldman (Hackett Publishing, 2001), 108.] Also see, Abraham Ibn Ezra's (1089-1164, Spain) commentary to Deuteronomy 34:1 and 2. Ibn Ezra was also famously troubled by this problem.

contrast, highlights the fact that if Moses did indeed write the Torah then he would have been lying when he wrote "And Moses died" while still alive. Another way to view the distinction between these two readings is to see the Baba Batra parallel as calling God (or the Torah) a liar and the Menaḥot parallel as calling Moses a liar. This point will be returned to later. However, even though each question represents a different type of theoretical problem, the fact that both questions make equal sense means that neither version can be deemed textually corrupt and neither text can be corrected on the basis of the other. Therefore exactly how one reads the question will have ramifications for how one reads the rest of the Talmudic passage that follows. It would be convenient if each one of these opposite formulations was followed by a different discussion in the Bavli, with each discussion addressing the particular theoretical concern posed by each question respectively. Since the questions are not mutually exclusive one can imagine, as is the case in many Bavli passages, a single text dealing with both of these questions, posed as they are, in succession. However, in this instance, both the Menaḥot and Baba Batra texts continue citing the Baraita in an identical manner76 The textual variation between these two otherwise identical Bavli passages goes back to the earliest printed editions of the Babylonian Bavli. The Pesaro (1511), Venice (1521), Basel (1578), and Frankfurt am Main (1720) editions all attest to the variance as 77 it appears in the Vilna edition presented above. 76F However, what is odd about this instance of textual variation between parallel sources is that the question as posed in the printed editions of Baba Batra 15a does not exist in that form in any of the extant manuscripts to Baba Batra 15a. One would expect at least one of the extant manuscripts 78 to share the Vilna formulation. Yet, the seven extant manuscripts to Baba Batra 15a 77F all have some version of the word "alive"—instead of "dead"—as the basis for the question. dead) find its way into the printed version in front of us? There are two) מת So how did approaches one can take in explaining the existence of the variant reading of the Baba Batra passage in the printed editions— why the printed editions have the word "dead" while all of the extant manuscripts have the word "alive." A text (or lower) critical approach would seek to explain the variance by appealing to an error in the transcription of a manuscript. A source (or higher) critical approach would appeal to the fact that the differences between the texts represent two separate traditions based on two distinct

76 With one possible exception that will be discussed below in footnote 121.

77 This word appears in parenthesis in the Vilna edition and a marginal note directs the reader to the מת Menaḥot variant. The early printed editions (Pesaro, Venice, Basel, and Frankfurt am Main) all have (was dead) without parenthesis. (See footnote 83.)

MSS Escorial and Oxford ;חי MSS Munich, Hamburg, Paris, Vatican, and Florence all have the word 78 These manuscripts are generally dated from the late twelfth to mid-fourteenth .קיים have the word centuries. A synopsis is provided in Appendix I. For the dating of individual manuscripts as well as a bibliography of the scholarly debate on this issue, see Hermann Leberecht Strack, Günter Stemberger, and Markus N. A. Bockmuehl, Introduction to the Bavli and Midrash (Fortress Press, 1996), 209-212.

sources and are therefore not the result of a scribal error. I will present a theory according to each of these approaches.

Source Criticism Versus Text Criticism

In this instance, the text critical approach is the less likely explanation for the discrepancies between the parallel sources. I, however, will posit it first because there is an extant manuscript which visually demonstrates how such scribal errors might occur. It is also a good example to use to demonstrate my thesis regarding the place of a reader in a text. A brief glance at the Firenze manuscript demonstrates how easy it is for a copyist, living). I do not claim) "חי" dead) for the word) "מת" writing hastily, to replace the word that the Firenze manuscript is the actual source for the textual divergence between the parallel texts. Quite. possibly, this discrepancy is a lot older than the Firenze manuscript. I only seek to demonstrate, in a concrete manner, how easy it is for a copyist to actually living). It is) "חי" dead) instead of) "מת" dead) in this passage and write) "מת" visualize important to note that this type of miscopying is almost encouraged in this instance precisely because there is actually so little logical difference between the words "alive" 79 and "dead," for the reader, prior to making meaning in this particular passage.78F In other words, whether the word is "alive" or "dead" the question still stands. It is only after the word "alive" or "dead" is placed in the text that the overall meaning of the passage changes—if "alive," then Moses is lying, and if "dead," then God (or the Torah) is lying. The following photograph of the Firenze (i.e. Florence II-I-9) manuscript will serve as a visual aid.

of the (דתנו) The Baraita in question begins with the fourth word of the first line The .(וימת) text in the photograph above and ends with the first word of the third line paleographic nuance that works at the intersection between a copyist's mind and eyes, in

79 Throughout this dissertation I use the phrase "making meaning in" instead of "making sense of" in order to connote a greater level of activity on the part of the reader. For me, the phrase "making sense of" is too closely related to "makes sense," which implies inactivity on the part of the author. When a text "makes sense," the reader seems to be passive. Jonathan Culler takes the exact opposite approach and believes that "making sense" implies an activity of the reader, while "meaning" implies a property of the text. [Jonathan Culler, The Pursuit of Signs: Semiotics, Literature, Deconstruction (Psychology Press, 2001), 50.] Of course, this all depends on how exactly the words "meaning" and "sense" are used in a sentence. The question of which word to use ultimately comes down to a matter of taste.

this instance, is the similarity between the appearance of the two circled words. This visual cue, combined with the fact that the copyist might not see a logical difference between "alive" and "dead" in the Baraita, explains how such an error might be introduced into the later manuscript tradition. Since no such manuscripts remain extant, this is not an argument based on evidence but rather a speculation as to both the possibility of such an occurrence and the mechanism through which it might have happened. The Hebrew word for "and yet wrote," when spelled out completely, is four followed (ו כ ת) The Firenze manuscript spells this word with three letters .ו כ ת ב :letters by a mark similar to an apostrophe, signaling ellipsis. This is the last word on the second line, circled above. It is remarkable how closely this cluster of letters, when combined with the mark, resembles the last two letters of the other circled word, located on the and he died), the two letters) וימת previous line and diagonally above them. That word is was dead"). The eyes of the reader can") מת combining to make the word ,ת and מ being easily jump back and forth, gazing over these clusters of letters, and see them as the living). The copyist) "חי" same. The boxed word, adjacent to these circled words, is living) is partially surrounded by the actual physical images) "חי" approaching the word dead), located both above it and to its left. It is quite imaginable that a copyist) "מת" of was alive). But this is only) "חי" was dead) for) "מת" would miscopy this word and insert imaginable because that copyist could read the question which begins the passage as .(מת) "or "death ( חי) "equally valid regardless of writing "life מת The second, and more likely, approach to explaining the origin of the word (was dead) in the Baba Batra passage as it appears in the Vilna Shas is a source critical one. Two other parallels to the Baba Batra and Menaḥot Baraita exist in rabbinic compilations. Both the Sifre (357:5) to Deuteronomy and the Yalkut Shimoni (to was dead) when asking the question of the) מת Deuteronomy 34:5) have the word 80 possibility of Moses writing about his own death.79F Unlike the relationship between the Baba Batra and Menaḥot parallels, which both continue the Baraita in an almost identical manner, the Sifre and Yalkut Shimoni continue in a manner that greatly diverges from

80 The most interesting aspect of the Sifre version, for my concerns is the fact that Rabbi Shimon uses a different verse from Deuteronomy to ask his question. (This point will be further addressed in footnotes 89 and 125.) It is interesting to note that the commentary of Elijah of Vilna emends the text of the Sifre in accordance with the Bavli. The Gaon emends the names of the participants in the debate to accord with the to conform to Menaḥot (חי to מת Bavli but does not emend the question (i.e he does not change the word .(in the Baba Batra 15a parallel (Hagahot HaGra to Sifre מת 30a, probably relying on the ise of the word [See E. Stern, “Elijah of Vilna and the Making of Modern rabbinic Judaism” (United States -- California: University of California, Berkeley, 2008), Chapter 2, for a discussion of the various scholarly opinions regarding the Gaon's emendation strategy in general; the Gaon's emendation strategy for Midrashic texts; whether or not this strategy was based on a certain conceived hierarchy between the Babylonian Bavli and Midrashic literature; as well as the importance of the fact that most of the emendations attributed to the Gaon were the product of editors posthumously copying from the margins of the Gaon's volumes.] On the other hand, it is unclear to what extent the introduction of the Yalkut Shim'oni anthology adds to our source critical investigation, both due to its late date (c. 13th century ?) and reliance on the Bavli manuscript tradition. [For scholarly debate on this issue, see bibliography cited in Strack, Stemberger, and Bockmuehl, Introduction to the Bavli and Midrash, 352.] A comparison of the text of the Sifre, the Yalkut Shimoni, and Menaḥot 30 is provided in Appendix F.

81 their Talmudic parallels.80F It is these differences in the continuation of the passage as they appear in the Sifre and Yalkut Shimoni that most probably led to a difference in the 82 question that begins the passage.81F It is therefore highly probable that the Sifre's version (was dead) מת of the Baraita is in fact the original source for the appearance of the word 83 in the Vilna version of Baba Batra.82F One might wonder, however, why the Menaḥot 84 parallel was not changed to conform to the Sifre and Yalkut Shimoni as well.83F Having explained two possible approaches to understanding the origin of the difference between the Menaḥot and the Baba Batra versions of this Baraita, I now return to an exploration of 85 the role of an ambiguous term84F within the Baraita on the linearity of the reading process. I do so by locating the space that real historical readers have occupied in this text.

Moses Writes the Torah: Readers Write the Bavli

After posing the question of the impossibility of Moses both writing the Torah and also dying within the Torah that he has written, the Baraita at both locations 86 continues nearly identically.85F Two Tannaim dispute as to how to reconcile the incongruity between the verse in Deuteronomy and Moses's mortal state:

Rather, Moses wrote [the text of the Torah] up until the 87 point86F [of his death] and Joshua wrote the rest: These are

81 See Appendix F for a synopsis.

82 See footnote 125 for a list of these differences . 83 The Vilna edition of Baba Batra, then, would merely be copying the earlier printed editions. The in parenthesis in the Vilna edition marks the fact that the Menahot parallel does מת appearance of the word appears at Menahot חי The Mesoret Hashas to Baba Batra 15a notes that the word . מת not use the word 30a. Although this indication is given in the Mesoret Hashas it does originate with Yehoshua Boaz the son of Shimon Baruch (d. 1557, Italian), the author of that work. None of the early printed editions of the Bavli include this comment within their Mesoret Hashas and its appearance within the Mesoret Hashas marginalia therefore appears to originate in the Vilna edition. It is most probable that the editors of the חי in parenthesis rather than delete or replace it with מת Vilna edition of Baba Batra chose to place the word in his מת because of the fact that the Maharsha (Shmuel Eidels, 1555-1631, Poland) attests to the word [ד"ה: א"ל ר"ש אפשר ס"ת חסר אות אחת כו' ,to Baba Batra 15a חידושי אגדות] .(Ḥîdûšê ʾAgādôt) חידושי אגדות

. חי To my knowledge, all extant manuscripts and printed editions of Menaḥot have the word 84

.with/in tears ,בדמע :This word is 85

86 See footnote 100.

87 Literally: Until here.

88 the words of Rabbi Yehudah87F or, as some say, Rabbi 89 Nehemiah.88F Rabbi Shimon said to him: Is it possible that 90 a Sefer Torah89F is missing one letter and yet it is written "Take this Sefer Torah..." (Deuteronomy 31:26)! Rather, 91 92 up until this point [of the Torah text] God90F dictated91F and 93 Moses recited92F and then wrote, from this point [in the text 94 of the Torah and] onward God93F dictated and Moses wrote 95 96 97 :96F Just as it is stated later on.בדמע[ות] with/in94F tears95F "And Barukh said to them: He dictated all of these words to me and I wrote them in the book with ink" (Jeremiah 36:18).

A survey of the medieval commentatorial tradition reveals two divergent 98 exegetical streams that attempt to make sense of this passage.97F What is most interesting

88 The Vilna edition only has the abbreviation R"Y. R"Y can refer to any of a number of rabbis but one can generally surmise who it refers to by appealing to his interlocutor. When the interlocutor is Rabbi Shimon then R"Y invariably refers to Rabbi Yehudah. In addition, The Venice edition has Rabbi Yehudah.

89 From a source critical perspective, it is interesting to note that the parallel version of this story in the Sifre (357:5) has the two opinions presented by an unnamed disputant and Rabbi Meir. In addition, Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Nehemiah are disputants in another Bavli passage that mentions Joshua's role in the writing the last eight verses of the Torah (Makkot 11a). Louis Jacobs reads the original (prior to Stammaitic intervention) intent of the argument between Rabbi Nehemiah and Rabbi Yehudah in Makkot to have both Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Nehemiah assert that Joshua wrote some portion of the Torah. It therefore makes sense to have both of them appear in Baba Batra as disputants of Rabbi Shimon. Louis Jacobs, Structure and Form in the Babylonian Bavli (Cambridge University Press, 1991), 37. (The Yalkut Shimʿoni version has Rabbi Yehudah, Rabbi Nehemiah, and Rabbi Shimon representing the first opinion and Rabbi Meir representing the second.)

90 Literally: Book of Law. Idiomatically: Pentateuch.

91 Literally: The Holy One blessed be He.

אומר 92

אומר 93

94 Literally: The Holy One blessed be He.

.b") in this instance will be discussed shortly") "ב" The ambiguity of the preposition 95

.(בדמע) Vilna has this word in the singular .(בדמעו') "Munich has the elided plural "tears 96

97 See footnote 96

98 See, for example, the opinions cited in Ritva (Yom Tov ben Avraham Asevilli, 1250-1330, Spain) to Baba Batra 15a. The one major exception is the approach of the Vilna Gaon who takes a third approach that will be discussed in footnote 113. 36

about these two lines of interpretation is that they both can be traced back to Rashi.99 Rashi reads this passage at Baba Batra 15a in quite a different manner than he does for the seemingly identical parallel found at Menakhot 30a.100 The student of Rashi's methodology might not find this surprising as Rashi's exegetical considerations are generally driven by local concerns.101 However, local concerns do not seem to be at play

99 Rabbi Solomon the son of Isaac (1040-1105, France).

dead/alive) difference, the Baba Batra and Menaḥot parallels) מת/חי As mentioned earlier, other than the 100 are nearly identical. However, there is one slight difference in the section of the text describing whether or not Moses recited the torah prior to writing it down for the section of the Torah that includes all but the last 8 verses. This nuance can be seen in Version 2 in the table below. In the Menaḥot parallel, as presented in the Vilna Shas, the order of the terms "wrote" and "recited" are switched. Rather than Moses reciting prior to writing he writes and then subsequently recites. It is quite possible to read these two versions as really as "while reciting" rather "אומר" saying the same thing. Such would be the case if we translate the word than "and then recited." However if we do not translate it in this manner and see the two parallel texts as presenting a different order of events then Rashi's explanation at Menahot 30a which emphasizes the fact that Moses was unable to verbalize the text prior to writing it down is less plausible.

Version 1 (Vilna-Baba Batra) Version 2 (Vilna-Menaḥot) Rather, up until this point [of the Torah Rather, up until this point [of the Torah text] God text] God dictated and Moses recited and dictated and Moses wrote and recited, from this "בדמע" wrote, from this point onward God point onward God dictated and Moses wrote .(with/in (with/in tears) "בדמע" dictated and Moses wrote tears).

101 Rashi's local approach to explaining the Bavli contrasts with the global approach of the Tosafists. David Weiss Halivni explains the difference between the exegetical approaches of Rashi and the Tosafists as originating in each commentary's attitude toward—and objective regarding—halakha.

The tosafists were more preoccupied with halakha than was Rashi...The tosafot often challenge Rashi's explanation of a sugya on the basis of a conflicting sugya in another location. Rashi, however, could be more firm in his commitment to peshat precisely because he was interested in ad locum exegesis; his exegetical scope was purposefully restricted, generally, to the sugya at hand. The tosafists, far more concerned with the reconciliation of conflicting Talmudic sources—because their primary concern was for the determination and clarification of halakha—were forced to abandon local peshat when Rashi was not...Rashi could, without exegetical unease, interpret a sugya according to its peshat even when knowing that his interpretation ran contrary to the Gemara in another location, and he was almost certainly not unaware of the conflicting talmudic sources which the tosafot referred to in objecting to his commentary. This can be discerned through his responsa, which...do take the full breadth of halakhic sources into account.

in this particular instance, whether at Baba Batra or Menaḥot. A close reading of this passage will bring to light the textual nuances that elicit the two divergent interpretive traditions and how those interpretive traditions, in turn, drive the textual nuances. If we focus on the experience of the reader attempting to make sense of the logic of the passage, it becomes apparent what difficulties allowed Rashi the opportunity to read and write this passage in two different ways.102 At the level of language, this text appears quite clear. The reader of this passage, in an attempt to understand its meaning, is faced with only one linguistic ambiguity throughout the course of the Baraita. However, this single linguistic ambiguity drives the possibility for variable meaning at every logical step of the text. The text presents itself in six stages: 1. An incongruity is introduced (based on the fact that Moses dies during a scene that he has supposedly written.)103

[All italics are Halivni's.] David Weiss Halivni, Peshat and Derash: Plain and Applied Meaning in rabbinic Exegesis (Oxford University Press US, 1998), 172-173.

102 Rashi's commentary on the Bavli had such a great impact on subsequent, and therefore practically all, manuscript and printed editions that it is in most cases nearly impossible to untangle his emendations from the text. In most instances where Rashi emends a text we are only left to invent an imagined text that pre- existed his emendation. One is left to wonder to what extent the manuscript tradition assists us in accessing a pre-Rashi text. With the exception of a few genizah fragments, whose dating itself is contested, all of the extant manuscripts post-date Rashi. Additionally, the Spanish commentatorial tradition is so greatly affected by Rashi that even the Spanish manuscripts do not assist in solving this problem, even though they are born out of a geographic location far from Rashi's Rhineland. Finally, most of our evidence for alternate Rashi traditions—which would lend insight into the intersection of Rashi's commentary and the text of the Bavli in flux—stem from secondary witnesses, especially the work of the sixteenth century compilation (and commentary) of Bezalel ben Abraham Ashkenazi who quotes from a first edition (manuscript) of Rashi's commentary in his Shitah Mekubetzet.

103 The Baba Batra passage appears in a discussion of who wrote which Biblical books. The Gemara cites a Baraita at 14b that lists the order of the books of the Prophets and the Writings. After several Stammaitic insertions questioning the order set up in the Baraita a different question is asked. The Stam asks: "And who wrote [these books]?" The Gemara goes on to answer for each of the books of the Prophets and the Writings. It appears that although the question is Stammaitic the answer is a continuation of the previous does not help decide whether the Baraita continues because the "...תניא קמאן דאמר" Baraita. The phrase phrase can alternately be translated as either "There is a Baraita in accordance with the one who says..." or "The Baraita is in accordance with the one who says..." The passage reads: "Moses wrote his book, the portion of Balaam (presumably Numbers 23-24), and the book of Job. Joshua wrote his book and eight verses in the Torah." It is fairly obvious what is meant by the words "his book" in reference to Joshua. However, it a bit unclear as to what the Baraita means by "his book" in reference to Moses. This is due to the fact the Baraita states that Moses wrote both "his book" and the portion of Balaam. If it refers to the Pentateuch then it seems a bit odd that the Baraita would also state that the portion of Balaam was also written by Moses because that portion is subsumed within the Pentateuch. It seems plausible that the Baraita, by "his book," merely refers to Deuteronomy. This plausibility is grounded on the fact that the Baraita itself undermines the claim that Moses wrote the Pentateuch in its entirety by introducing the notion that Joshua wrote the last eight verses. The problem with explaining the Baraita as referring to Deuteronomy lies in the fact that this explanation would leave a gap—all of the books of the Hebrew Bible would be given authors except for Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and most of Numbers. A number of 38

2. Rabbi Yehudah's position that Joshua wrote the final eight verses answers the incongruity presented in stage 1. 3. Rabbi Shimon objects to Rabbi Yehudah's position based on the verse from since a ;(ספר תורה) Deuteronomy 31:26, in which Moses refers to a Sefer Torah cannot be missing even one letter one must presume that it (ספר תורה) Sefer Torah already must have textually existed in complete form by the historical time of Deuteronomy 31:26.

4. Rabbi Shimon explains the manner in which Moses wrote beforeU U the verse detailing his death. 5. Rabbi Shimon then differentiates the manner in which Moses wrote the verse that details his death as well as the seven verses that follow. These verses were 104 .(103F (with/in tears בדמע[ות] written 6. Rabbi Shimon supports his answer with a verse from Jeremiah. The reader proceeds linearly through the first four stages of this text and tries to 105 make sense of the logical flow.104F This reader might pause after stage 1 and wonder about the exact nature of the incongruity. This would certainly be the case for the reader who sees the question as posed in the Baba Batra parallel to be logically different than the 106 version of the question posed in the Menaḥot parallel.105F In whatever manner the reader traditional commentators address this problem. [See, for example, a) Ritva explains that "the portion of Balaam" refers to separate work that has been lost; b) 'Anaf Yosef explains that the portion of Balaam is singled out to explain that Moses paraphrased the words of Balaam rather than quoting him directly; c) ʿIyun Yaʿakov explains that the first four books of the Pentateuch were written by God and Moses wrote Deuteronomy and the portion of Balaam. He reads this explanation into the words of Rashi but certainly is taking liberties.]

104 See footnote 96

105 Stanley Fish and Wolfgang Iser both base their reader response theories on an analysis of the temporal flow of the reading experience. The key difference between their approaches to understanding how a reader moves linearly through a text is that Fish focuses on what happens as each word or letter is read and Iser focuses on "word chunks" or sentences. It makes sense to analyze the reading experience one letter or word at a time because that is the way most readers experience a text. [To understand the notion of experiencing a text one letter at a time one must only imagine the ancient Israelite and Greek writing systems which did not employ space markers between words. It is interesting that the Vilna Gaon's understanding of this Talmudic passage entails a conception of a Torah that was written with consecutive letters and containing no space markers by which differentiate the start and end of words (see footnote 113).] However, the importance of words or sentences in the temporal reading process varies depending on the nature of the text and the language in which it is written. In most instances the GB reader is encouraged to digest thoughts in chunks of words and my analysis will focus on the reading process at this level, though there is certainly room to analyze the reading process as it relates to the Bavli in smaller literary units. [See, for example, Fish, “Literature in the Reader.” and Iser, The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response, 109-110.]

106 Some medieval commentators did not. For example, the commentary of Shmuel Eidels (Maharsha) notes the textual difference between the parallels yet sees no logical difference between the presentation of the question of the Baraita at each of these locations. See footnote 83.

chooses to frame the conceptual basis for the incongruity in stage 1, this incongruity is certainly resolved by Rabbi Yehudah's position in stage 2, namely, that Joshua wrote the 107 final eight verses of the Torah.106F Rabbi Shimon's objection in stage 3 breaks the flow of 108 reading process.107F How is this verse from Deuteronomy an objection to Rabbi necessarily "...(ספר תורה) Yehudah's position? Does the verse "Take this Sefer Torah imply that the Torah in its entirety was already written at that point in the Biblical story? Is Rabbi Shimon's application of a law regarding the writing of a Torah a somewhat anachronistic interpretation of what Moses was referring to in that verse? At this point, the reader might reflect on the verse from Deuteronomy cited by Rabbi Shimon, its implications, and possible meaning. How does it relate to the question posed in stage 1 regarding the problem of Moses writing about his own death and the answer offered by Rabbi Yehudah in stage 2 regarding Joshua's role in writing the final eight verses? The reader might also wonder why Rabbi Shimon did not use a different verse to argue his point. Verse 24 of chapter 31 of Deuteronomy, which appears merely two verses prior to 109 the verse Rabbi Shimon cites, would seem to suit his needs better.108F This verse reads: (book ,ספר) And it was when Moses finished writing the words of this Torah on a sefer" until their completion." Rabbi Shimon's argument hinges on the notion of completion. Deuteronomy 31:24 would therefore more concretely drive home his point. However, these are all questions of logic; each individual reader will try to resolve the logical difficulties within their own conceptual framework and then move forward through the ,(with/in tears) "בדמע" ,text. Stage 5, however provides a roadblock. An ambiguous term is introduced.

107 In fact this is the precise reason the Baraita was cited in the first place. The Gemara at 14b had proclaimed that Joshua wrote the final 8 verses of the Torah. The Gemara therefore, apparently, cites the Baraita in order to support this assertion with the view of a named Tanna. (See footnote 103.)

108 Whereas Roman Ingarden sees such obstacles to the flow of reading ("flow of sentence thinking") as a defect of the text Wolfgang Iser argues that obstacles to the continuous flow of sentences serve a very important function in a literary text.

The 'obstacle' condemned by Ingarden enables the sentence correlates to be set off against one another. On the level of sentences themselves, the interruption of expected connections may not be of great significance; however, it is paradigmatic of the many processes of focusing and refocusing that take place during the reading of the literary text. This need for readjustment arises primarily from the fact that the aesthetic object has no existence of its own, and can consequently only come into being by way of such processes.

[Iser, The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response, 112-113.]

109 The Sifre Deuteronomy parallel (357:5) uses yet another verse, Deuteronomy 31:9, "And Moses wrote this Torah..."

leads to "בדמע" b") in the word") "ב" The ambiguity of the prepositional marker 110 two possible English translations, either "with tears" or "in tears."109F In Hebrew, it is 111 unclear whether Moses used tears, instead of ink, as the instrument of his writing110F or whether Moses was so distraught over the knowledge of his impending demise that he 112 wrote these verses while weeping.111F Thus, while whichever English translation one chooses to use for this term the interpretive scale would certainly be tipped—"with tears" would suggest "with tears rather than ink" and "in tears" would suggest "while crying"— ,with/in tears), rather) בדמע the Hebrew version offers no such clue. The Hebrew maintains a decided and interruptive ambiguity. Given this ambiguity, the GB reader is forced to choose between one of these two interpretations, "in" or "with," in order to find 113 a logical cohesion to the passage.112F Before retracing and rereading stages 1 through 4 in with/in) "בדמע" an attempt to decide between the two likely interpretations of the word tears), the reader encounters one last clue. Perhaps stage 6 will force an interpretation one way or the other. The reader now reads stage 6 with both possibilities in mind. Which of these possibilities more makes likely sense of the Rabbi Shimon's prooftext? What point does the verse from Jeremiah make about Rabbi Shimon's conception of Moses's involvement in the writing of the final eight verses of Deuteronomy? The key to unlocking the meaning of this Baraita seems to lie in the function of the verse that Rabbi Shimon offers in support of his position. Unfortunately, the prooftext that appears in stage 6 (the Jeremiah verse about Barukh) offers no clue that would tip the scales of interpretive probability one way or the other. Therefore, rather than using the Jeremiah with/in tears) each of these) "בדמע" verse in the service of understanding how to translate with/in tears) must now be read into the Jeremiah verse in an) "בדמע" two possibilities for attempt to yield the content of its own meaning in this context.

at Menaḥot בדמע tears) and the singular) בדמעות The Munich manuscript to Baba Batra 15a has the plural 110 30. One could possibly argue that this distinction is the result of Rashi's reading at each location, with the author of the Munich manuscript tradition subtly following Rashi's lead without greatly diverging from the would mean "writing while בדמע would then mean "writing with tears" and בדמעות .actual text being copied in a state of crying." None of the other manuscripts distinguish between the two locations. All of them .whether at Menaḥot 30a and at Baba Batra 15a ,בדמע have the word as

111 Offered by Rashi to Baba Batra 15a.

112 Offered by Rashi to Menaḥot 30a.

He . דמע The Vilna Gaon (Elijah ben Shlomo Zalman, 1720-1797) offers a third reading of the root 113 reads this word as etymologically related to the word for "mixing." Moses wrote the Torah without spaces between the letters and only later were the letters separated into words. ('Avodat haGershuni, Shir Hashirim 5:11) (The Gaon's reading is also discussed in Ben Yehoyada [Yosef Chaim of Baghdad, 1832-1909] and 'Anaf Yosef [Ḥanokh Zundel ben Yosef, Bialystok, Poland, d. 1867]). The Gaon is driven to this reading of by concerns beyond the scope of this Bavli passage and I therefore did not offer this בדמע the word alternative earlier when describing the experience of the reader reading this passage linearly. The Gaon is bothered by the idea that the rabbinic notion that the Torah existed thousands of years before Moses (see for example Shabbat 88b or Bereishit Rabbah 8:2) and therefore the whole passage does not seem to make sense.

Real Readers Reading

Before analyzing the text as it appears before us in the Vilna Shas I will return to an examination of how the text evolved by means of the reading practices of those historical readers who shaped the form of the text as it now appears before us. Although I mentioned earlier that the reader of the Bavli always understands a layer of meaning before encountering the next word on the page, this layer of meaning is just an expectation or bias which when not met gives the reader pause. The reading process always begins with these biases and expectations. However, once the reading process has begun, linguistic considerations must, out of necessity, come prior to logical considerations.114 The reader first attempts to understand what a word means before reading that word in context. However, it is impossible to understand a word out of context. The reader therefore engages in a continuously expanding negotiation between the word and its context. First the reader negotiates the word's immediate surroundings and then the reader moves on to the larger context. The reader moves outward in this manner, eventually negotiating a multitude of concerns relating to the much broader cultural context—the cultural context of the reader, the text, and the imagined author. This is a process that never ends but always starts at the level of language. The fact that Rashi allows his two divergent readings of an identical text, Baba Batra 15a and Menaḥot 30a, to both coexist in his commentary of the Bavli is manifest evidence to the lack of resolution of this process.115

with/in tears) to mean that) "בדמע" Rashi, at Baba Batra 15a, chooses to interpret Moses used tears as the instrument of his writing, his ink. He therefore reads the verse from Jeremiah in quite a minimalist manner. Jeremiah 36:18, as quoted in the Baraita,

114 For earlier Bavli scholarship on the role of verbal ambiguity in the meaning making process as it relates to rabbinic literature, see Daniel Boyarin, Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash (Indiana University Press, 1994), 57-79; and Aryeh Cohen, Rereading Bavli: Gender, Law, and the Poetics of Sugyot (Scholars Press, 1998), 135-141.; [Cohen uses the term polysemy.] Earlier examples of scholarly works which address similar issues are: Susan A. Handelman, The Slayers of Moses: The Emergence of rabbinic Interpretation in Modern Literary Theory (SUNY Press, 1982) ; and David Stern, “Midrash and Indeterminacy,” Critical Inquiry 15, no. 1 (October 1, 1988): 132-161.

115 Once again I emphasize that an appeal to local concerns of Baba Batra 15a and Menaḥot 30a in an attempt to explain the conflicting interpretations of Rashi in this case would be extremely forced, at best.

states: "And Barukh said to them: 'He dictated all of these words to me and I wrote them in the book with ink.'" According to Rashi at Baba Batra 15a, the verse is merely an example of how prophetic texts were written: by means of dictation. Chapter 36 of Jeremiah has God command Jeremiah to write down all that God has spoken to him. So Jeremiah dictates the words of God to Barukh and Barukh writes them on a scroll. Rashi sums up the function of the Jeremiah prooftext: "just as we find that prophets write from the mouth of their masters."116 with/in) "בדמע" However, Rashi at Menaḥot 30a chooses to interpret the word tears) quite differently: "Moses wrote the last eight verses of the Bible while weeping." According to this reading, God dictated all but the last eight verses of the Torah to Moses and Moses first repeated what God had said and only then wrote it down. In contrast, for the last eight verses of the Torah, God dictated and Moses wrote without first repeating the words. When read this way, the verse from Jeremiah serves a completely different function. It is used as evidence to the fact that scribes generally verbalize a prophecy book). However, in instances when the subject matter is ,ספר) prior to writing it in a sefer too painful, as is the case of the prophecy of doom in the Jeremiah text, they write without prior vocalization. Therefore, Rabbi Shimon cites the verse from Jeremiah as an example of a prophet writing a prophecy without prior vocalization. Rabbi Shimon seems to need no textual evidence that the norm is otherwise, that scribes generally 117 verbalize prior to writing.116F These two alternate conceptions of the function of the verse from Jeremiah do not equally cohere with the text that we have before us. Rashi's explanation of the Menaḥot parallel accounts for a textual nuance in stage 4, namely, that for the entire Torah up until the last eight verses God dictated and Moses recited before writing. In contrast, Rashi's explanation of the Baba Batra But parallel a lack does of r notesolution make usedoes of not the sit distinction well with betweensubsequent the readers.acts of writing So the with process and continueswithout prior long recitation. after Rashi However, wrote his each final of word. these Inexplanations this manner theworks Bavli equally continues well ifto we be takerewritten. into account However, the textualwith the variants advent toof stageprinting 4 already and the attested subsequent historical dominance of the text of the Vilna Shas the prevalence of the type of internal rewriting in which the classical medieval commentatorial tradition discussed below engages has greatly been curtailed. 116 Rashi to Baba Batra 15a.

117 In the minds of the medieval commentators verbalization before writing seems a given. We can assume that it was standard practice in their era. Walter Ong claims that medieval manuscripts were always read aloud even in situations where the reader was reading alone. [Walter J. Ong, “Orality, Literacy, and Medieval Textualization,” New Literary History 16, no. 1 (Autumn 1984): 1-12.] The rabbinic tradition and the "בשמיעת אוזן. בעיכת שפתים" certainly emphasizes reading aloud. [See Mishana Avot 6:5 Samuel) מדרש שמואל commentatorial tradition to that passage. One example would be the commentary of the son of Isaac of Uceda, Palestine, b. c. 1540). For important studies on the differences between oral and written cultures as well as ways of understanding textual transmission prior to the printing press see: Jack Goody, The Interface Between the Written and the Oral (Cambridge University Press, 1987); Eric Alfred Havelock, Preface to Plato (Harvard University Press, 1963); Albert B. Lord, The Singer of Tales (Harvard University Press, 1964); Marshall McLuhan, The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man (University of Toronto Press, 1962); Walter J. Ong, Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word (Methuen, 1982); Milman Parry and Adam Parry, The Making of Homeric Verse: The Collected Papers of Milman Parry (Oxford University Press US, 1987).

118 in the medieval commentatorial tradition.117F A number of early witnesses refer to recited). I present a comparison chart) אומר versions of this text that eliminate the word (Table 1) below. As far as understanding the space that medieval readers occupied vis-à- vis the text, it is unclear which of the variants is the one they are reading and which is the version rewritten to better accommodate an alternate reading of the function of the verse from Jeremiah in stage 6. Although it might appear that version 2 below is the rewritten version, this is not necessarily the case. It only appears so because of the convention I've 119 used in presenting the data: working backwards from the Vilna edition.118F What is clear with/in tears) is at the center of the attempts of the) "בדמע" is that the verbal ambiguity of various historical reader/writers' quests to make this text make sense. Additionally, the uncertain nature of the function of the Jeremiah verse adds to the non-linearity of the reading experience. The reader, or reader/writer, must move back and forth, forward then backwards through the text, adjusting the meaning of the various variables along the way.

TableU 1

The two versions of the Baraita:

120 Version 1 (Vilna) Version 2 (119F ) Rather, up until this point [of the Torah Rather, up until this point [of the Torah

text] God dictatedU U and Moses recitedU U and text] God dictatedU U and Moses wroteU ,U from 121 wroteU U120F , from this point onward God this point onward God dictatedU U and Moses

.(with/in tears) "בדמע" with/in wroteU U) "בדמע" dictatedU U and Moses wroteU U tears).

In Version 2, the verse from Jeremiah necessarily takes on a different function than Version 1. Version 2 makes no distinction between the method Moses uses to

118 Ritva is an early witness to these two textual variants as well as the readings they elicit. Tosafot to Menaḥot 30a also mentions the textual variant.

119 The Yalkut Shim'oni version , which contains a number of variants to this passage, eliminates stage 4 completely. In the Yalkut Shim'oni stage 3 uses a different verse to pose the objection to the view proffered in stage 2 (the players in the debate are also skewed); stage 4 is skipped; and then stage 5 and 6 are presented with a subtle variation. However, the Yalkot Shim'oni tradition does not necessarily help us reconstruct the evolution of the text in the Bavli. (See footnote 80.)

120 See footnote 118.

121 The Menaḥot parallel inverts these verbs: "wrote and recited." Although the word "recited" is absent from Munich and Vatican manuscripts as well as the Basel and Krakow prints of Menaḥot Rashi clearly has, or writes, this word in his text and explains the Baraita accordingly. It is important to note that Rashi was so influential in forming the actual text of the Bavli through his emendations that it is, for the most part, impossible to talk about a pre-Rashi text.

transcribe the word of God before and after the last eight verses of the Torah. Therefore, the verse from Jeremiah simply comes to draw a parallel between the type of dictation 122 that Moses took from God and the type of dictation that Barukh took from Jeremiah.121F Since there is no distinction between the mode of dictation before and after the last eight if ",בדמע" verses, whether the text was verbalized prior to writing or not, the word translated as "in tears," no longer means "unable to speak due to grief" but rather that Moses was sad because he knew his demise was imminent. However if, according to is translated as "with tears" then it would mean that Moses used his "בדמע" ,Version 2 with/in) "בדמע tears as ink. The question that arises out of this new binary reading of tears) is whether or not the ambiguity is resolved. Is it possible that the word is still ambiguous yet each of the binary translations produced by the ambiguity both lead to the same idea? The assumption until this point was that what is meant by the image of writing with tears in the place of ink is a picture of a man in sorrow over his own imminent demise. If this were the case then "with tears" and "in tears" would both share an identical meaning. This odd phenomenon regarding the nature of ambiguity recalls the two versions of the original question that began the Baraita. Is there a difference between question

number 1, "Is it possible that Moses was deadU U and yet wrote 'And Moses died'!," and

question number 2, "Is it possible that Moses was aliveU U and yet wrote 'And Moses died'!"? Although the nature of the incongruity is the same in both passages the implications of the incongruity are quite different. Whereas the question posed in Baba Batra is a question of possibility, the question posed in Menaḥot is a question of verity. Baba Batra asks how it would be possible for Moses to have written that he was dead if he was already dead. A dead man cannot write. Menaḥot asks how Moses could have lied about his own death. Rabbi Yehudah answers both of these questions in the same manner: Moses did not write that verse, Joshua did. How does Rabbi Shimon answer both of these questions and how does each question affect the path of the reader? First, let us deal with the Baraita as it appears in Menaḥot where the question is one of verity. This question can be seen from a moral perspective. Most of the medieval commentators deal with the moral issue and resolve it differently depending on whether with/in tears) as "while crying" or as "with tears instead of) "בדמע" they read the word ink." If we follow the "while crying" line of reasoning, then Moses did not "recite" the 123 words and therefore he is not a liar.122F This line of reasoning is somewhat faulty because 124 he would be lying with his written word.123F In addition, the implications of the verse from Jeremiah, as a prooftext, would have Moses not lying merely because he was too emotional to lie but not for any moral reason. If we follow the "with tears instead of ink"

122 This is the explanation given by Rashi to Baba Batra.

123 This line of reasoning works well with the text as it appears in the Vilna Shas where the distinction between stages 3 and 4 is whether or not Moses recited before he wrote.

124 Although there are many rabbinic sources which one could cite to demonstrate that lying is related to "utterance," it is, however, unlikely that any of those sources would promote lying in writing.

line of reasoning then Rabbi Shimon's answer is very similar to Rabbi Yehudah's answer. Simply put, Moses wrote the first eight verses but they did not actually appear on the parchment because they were written with invisible ink: tears. This would certainly resolve the moral issue. According to this reading, Rabbi Shimon's objection (in stage 3) book) and he solves this problem by ,ספר) has to do with his conception of the word sefer having Moses complete the writing even though there was nothing to read. The writing was done; the last piece of parchment was already sewn; and the scroll was complete. It just had a lot of blank space at the end, owing to the invisible ink. According to this line of reasoning, the verse from Jeremiah is still problematic. Rashi had explained that it was a prooftext about dictation and therefore was not meant to be a specific comment on stage 5, the different mode of dictation used for the last eight verses of the Torah. However, one word in the Jeremiah verse strikes the reader in this context: "ink." The verse from Jeremiah demonstrates that real writing must be done with ink and therefore book) it was not real writing and therefore ,ספר) although Moses wrote a complete sefer he did not lie. Now let us turn to the Baraita as it appears in Baba Batra where the question of stage 1 is one of the very possibility of his having written these verses. Neither the "while crying" nor the "with tears instead of ink" line of reasoning satisfactorily eliminates the incongruity. In either case, Moses would be dead and not able to write. The solution lies in Rabbi Shimon's conception of the nature of the possible as it relates to his conception of the nature of a book. Rabbi Shimon's argument that Moses must have written the entire Torah is based on the fact that Moses, in chapter 31 of Deuteronomy, tells the Levites to take the book of the Torah. For Rabbi Shimon, the the book ,ספר התורה) very fact that Moses referred to a physical object as sefer ha-Torah of the Torah) demonstrates that it was complete. It is quite telling that Rabbi Shimon did not use verse 24 of that same chapter, a verse that would seem to suit his purposes far better. Deuteronomy 31:24 reads: "And it was when Moses finished writing the words ".book) until their completion ,ספר) of this Torah on a sefer Why did Rabbi Shimon not simply use this verse to argue that Moses wrote the 125 Torah in its entirety, from beginning to end?124F One may offer that verse 24 might refer

125 The parallel Sifre (357:5) passage uses a third verse to ask the same question. The verse quoted in the Sifre's version of Rabbi Shimon's question (though in the Sifre it is Rabbi meir who asks the question) is from Deuteronomy 31:9: "and Moses wrote this Torah." There are a number of other differences between the Sifre version and that of the Bavli: a)The first opinion of the Baraita (the one that the Bavli states in the name of Rabbi Yehudah or Rabbi Nehemiah) is quoted anonymously in the Sifre; b) The opinion of Rabbi Shimon is stated by Rabbi Meir in the Sifre; c) Rabbi Meir (the position represented by Rabbi Shimon in the Baraita) uses Deuteronomy 31:9, rather than Deuteronomy 31:26, as the basis for his question; d) The with/in tears) does not play a role in the Sifre parallel; and e) The Sifre answer Rabbi Meir's) "בדמע" word (the position represented by Rabbi Shimon in the Baraita) question with "Moses wrote what god told him to write." As a result, the prooftext from Jeremiah must be seen as being used for slightly different ends; [ f) when asking Rabbi Meir's (or Rabbi ,חי rather than ,מת As mentioned earlier, the Sifre uses the word Shimon's) question.] A synoptic table comparing the text of the Sifre with those of the Bavli and the Yalkut Shim'oni is given in Appendix F. The Sifre at 357:5 reads:

only to its immediate or extended context—the set of laws that Moses has just delivered or perhaps the entire book of Deuteronomy. However, Rabbi Shimon points to the phrase the book of the Torah) to argue that there was a physical ,ספר התורה) "sefer ha-Torah" 126 object that was a completed Torah.125F This object is referred to in its completed stage within the very story that it tells, a story that has yet to be completed. The common element between Rabbi Shimon's explanation of all but the last eight verses of the Torah in stage 4 and the Jeremiah prooftext in stage 6 drives home this point. It is more than the process of dictation that these two stages have in common. In both instances, there is a recitation prior to the writing, as if the writing can only exist after it has been read. For Rabbi Shimon, a book can exist as a physical object or a string of words before it has been read but the writing happens only after it has been read. It is only this notion of the relationship between reader and writer that allows a book to refer to itself in a manner that defies the logic of linear reading. Rabbi Shimon's use of the verse in Deuteronomy allows us a window into the conception of a book that refers to itself non-linearly, a book that can be complete while still being written. It also allows us to understand the nature of the book in which this conception is offered: the Bavli. Through an examination of linguistic and logical ambiguity, this chapter touched on the relationship between reading and writing, writing and text, and text and transmission. While the subject matter contained in the nearly identical Baraitot of Baba Batra and Menaḥot thematized this relationship, the commentatorial (and manuscript) 127 tradition practiced it. Though these Baraitot might126F represent an early layer of authorial work in the Bavli, they lay the ground rules and provide a model by which subsequent readers/writers are to conceive of and engage the Bavli, the text in which these Baraitot appear. This chapter also serves as an introduction to the type of non-linear reading that the Bavli requires, how the reader is forced to reread previous sections of the text in order to resolve later ambiguities. In this case, I used an example of two different approaches

וימת שם משה איפשר שמת משה וכותב וימת שם משה אלא עד כאן כתב משה מיכן ואילך כתב יהושע רבי מאיר אומר הרי הוא אומר ויכתוב משה את התורה הזאת איפשר שנתן משה את התורה כשהיא חסירה אפילו אות אחת אלא מלמד שהיה משה כותב מה שאמר לו הקדוש ברוך הוא כתוב כענין שנאמר ויאמר אליהם ברוך מפיו יקרא אלי

"And Moses died there." Is it possible that Modes died/was dead and [still] wrote "And Moses died?" Rather up until this point [in the text of the Bible] it was Moses who wrote [the text]; from this point [in the text of the Bible] and forward [it was] Joshua [who] wrote [the text.] Rabbi Meir says: Behold [the Bible/Moses] states "And Moses wrote this Torah." Is it possible that Moses gave the Torah missing even one letter? Rather [this discrepancy] teaches that Moses wrote what God told him to write, similar to what is stated: "And Barukh said to them, 'he dictated these words to me.'"

126 See Gittin 60a where Reish Lakish uses this exact verse to argue that the entire Torah was first given as one complete scroll. Rabbi Yohanan argues and says that the Torah was given one scroll at a time and that this verse refers to some point in time after all of the individually given scrolls were attached to each other. 127 It is always difficult to date a Baraita, primarily because there is usually no independent corroboration of their existence outside of the Bavli. In this case, it is unclear whether this Baraita (if a later version of the Sifre) was composed during Tannaitic, Amoraic, or later times. As we have seen, to a certain extent, this Baraita was still being written in medieval times. 47

to local readings of what apparently was once the same text. An understanding of the habituation of this non-linear reading process as it relates to the Bavli as a whole will, in later chapters, allow for a conception of the role of the Superstam as reader/writer of the text.

Chapter 2: Ambiguity as Subversion: Countering the Logic of the Sugya

An example of the seventh type of ambiguity, or at any rate of the last type of this series, as it is the most ambiguous that can be conceived, occurs when two meanings of the word, the two values of the ambiguity, are the two opposite meanings defined by the context, so that the total effect is to show a fundamental division in the writer's mind... A contradiction of this kind may be meaningless, but can never be a blank; it has at least given a sort of intensity to it...it is at once an indecision and a structure...it marks a centre of conflict... Of course, conflict need not be expressed overtly as contradiction, but it is likely that those theories of aesthetics which regard poetry as the resolution of conflict will find their illustrations chiefly in the limited field covered by the seventh type [of ambiguity].

William Empson, Seven Types of Ambiguity (New Directions Publishing, 1966), 192-193

In the previous chapter, I compared the parallel Baraitot (at Baba Batra 15a and Menahot 30a) concerning the death of Moses to illustrate how a linguistic ambiguity drives the quest for meaning in the reading experience. Real historical readers and the choices they are forced to make demonstrate how important the conflation of reading and writing has been in the development of the text we now call the Talmud. The previous chapter engaged in both text and source critical analysis in an effort to demonstrate how divergent textual traditions evolved. In this chapter, I will continue to examine the role that linguistic ambiguity plays in the reader's attempt to make meaning in the text. The first example will be similar to the passage treated earlier to the extent that a single ambiguous prepositional marker will bring an entire sugya into a new light. This example is local and self-contained. It serves to highlight the literary effect of a linguistic ambiguity outside, and above, the constraints of a time-bound linear reading experience. The second example will also explore how a linguistic ambiguity, by directing the reader beyond a local passage, serves to both frustrate the linear reading process and subvert the logic to which that local passage seems to drive. These examples will highlight the notion of the Talmud as a book that refers to itself outside of time and will underscore the type of reading experience that such a book fosters.

The epigraph that began this chapter, admittedly, takes liberties with Empson's text. The ellipses in the epigraph mark not the space between words in a sentence but rather the space between salient points strewn throughout the opening paragraphs of the seventh chapter of Empson's book— the chapter which deals with those types of ambiguity most closely resembling those I will treat in this chapter. When Empson speaks of "conflict" he makes reference to Freud's notion of ambivalence.128 Empson's discussion of the seventh type of ambiguity is a quest to understand what is accomplished, and what is revealed, when an author uses a word or phrase that simultaneously means both one thing and its opposite. His answer is that it reveals the author's conflicted state of mind, an ambivalence rather than a blank—both things rather than nothing.129 It is both within and building upon this conceptual framework that I present my first example. What, according to Empson, would be revealed when an author expresses this conflicted and ambivalent state of mind through the mechanism of not only an ambiguous word or phrase but also one that is superfluous?

128 Empson does not actually use the word ambivalence. This is probably because Empson refers to ideas in Freud's The Interpretation of Dreams rather than Totem and Taboo. Although Freud's analysis of dreams certainly hinges on his conception of ambivalence it is not until Totem and Taboo that he fully embraces the term. 129 Stanley Fish's approach to ambiguity is similar to Empson's in the sense that both critics believe ambiguity to be a device that allows for the expression of two separate unresolved meanings. For Fish, the reader of Milton's Paradise Lost is supposed to experience and be confounded by ambiguities rather than resolve them. [See Jonathan Culler, The Pursuit of Signs: Semiotics, Literature, Deconstruction (Psychology Press, 2001)..] What separates Empson and Fish is that while Empson argues that ambiguity reveals a conflicted state in the author's mind, Fish argues that Milton's purpose in writing his book was to make the reader experience this conflicted state. [However, it must be noted that the type of ambiguity found in Paradise Lost more readily compares to Empson's third type of ambiguity, which is: when "two apparently unconnected meanings are given simultaneously." (Empson, ibid. p. v) This type of ambiguity is akin to a pun, where the reader is "conscious of the pun, not of its consequences." (ibid. p. 102.) Still, Empson, in his treatment of Milton's Paradise Lost, does not ascribe the level of intentionality to Milton as does Fish.] It is difficult to see much of a distinction between the reader-oriented approach of Fish and the author-oriented approach of Empson. The practical difference in these approaches reveals itself in the level of agency given to the author of the ambiguity by these two critics. While Fish is saying something about Milton's consciousness when he makes his claim about Milton's reader, Empson is more likely saying something about Milton's unconsciousness. However, Fish, by detailing the experience of the reader, is able to get at an effect of the text he examines in a way that would not happen had he started his point of inquiry from the perspective of Milton. It is only by examining the reader's experience that Fish is able to make a claim about the text and, therefore, Milton. I take a similar approach in my analysis of ambiguity in the Bavli. By approaching ambiguity from the reader's perspective I am able highlight a literary feature of the Bavli as it relates to the reader's experience of the Bavli. It is quite possible to move from there to a more positivistic claim about the intention, whether conscious or unconscious, of either the author/s of the Bavli or the author/s of the literary features of the Bavli that I locate in this chapter. However, by approaching the Bavli from the reader's perspective I am also able to introduce, hypothesize about, and yet, at the same time, downplay the role of authorial intentionality for the literary features I describe. For Fish, see Stanley Fish, Surprised by Sin: The Reader in Paradise Lost, Second Edition, 2nd ed. (Harvard University Press, 1998). 1-11 and 43-45. For Empson on Paradise Lost, see William Empson, Milton’s God (Greenwood Press, 1978). 50

Example 1 (Baba Kama 32b): Descriptive Language in a Halakhic Sugya

In the Talmud, a statement is sometimes prefaced by the expression "Rava says" However, at other times, a similar statement might be prefaced by an .("אמר רבא") טפח ליה רבא בסנדליה אמר ) "...expression like: "Rava tapped him on the shoe and said This sort of descriptive language might seem superfluous to a reader interested .("ליה..." 130 only in the legal positions of two Amoraim129F debating a law. However, the Talmud is more than a repository of contrasting legal positions and the argumentation that led to them. On the face of it, the Talmud presents itself as a series of logical arguments seemingly driving toward conclusive legal rulings. However, once one digs deeper, it becomes apparent that the Talmud is a complex literary construction that both purveys and subverts meaning through its modes of expression—the words the Talmud actually uses to convey the logic of those legal arguments. This is true not only for the sections of the Talmud that have historically been labeled Aggada but even for those sections 131 historically labeled Halakha.130F Understanding the method of the Talmud's conveyance of a dispute and the literary characteristics of that conveyance are essential to understanding the nature of the Talmud as a work of literature. The Mishnah, at Baba Kamma 32b (3:7), discusses the degree of liability for a person who chops wood in one domain and [a woodchip flies of and] injures someone located in a different domain. The Talmud, later on that page, begins a new discussion עיר ) with a Baraita that builds upon the Biblical laws pertaining to the city of refuge The Bible details the laws of the city of refuge in Numbers (35:9-28) and .(מקלט 132 Deuteronomy (19:1-13).131F One who commits manslaughter may flee to one of six cities 133 of refuge to seek protection from those seeking to avenge the death.132F However, the city of refuge only protects those who kill inadvertently. The Biblical term used to express Š G G). These Biblical) שׁ ג ג the level of intentionality that permits refuge is the root passages address both the state of mind of the killer and the particular circumstances that indicate the killer's state of mind. The plethora of contemporary legal categories defining

130 The period of the Amoraim follows the period of the Tannaim and extends from 200 CE to the mid fifth century. Whereas all Tannaim lived in Palestine some Amoraim live in Babylonia and some live in Palestine.

131 For a reassessment of these historical categories see Barry Scott Wimpfheimer, Narrating the Law: A Poetics of Talmudic Legal Stories (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011). pp. 31-62. 132 The concept of a place of refuge for those who commit manslaughter is briefly referred to in Exodus 21:13.

.restorer of the blood) and a clan member is probably meant) גואל הדם The avenger is referred to as the 133 See Levine who connects the level of familial relationship meant here to Leviticus 25:49. Baruch A. Levine, Numbers 21-36 (Doubleday, 2000). pp. 564-565. The Bavli presents opinions that expand the גואל to anyone (Makkot 12a) or a court appointee (Sanhedrin 45b) in the absence of a גואל הדם category of is never גואל הדם however the level of familial relationship required for one to be considered a הדם specified.

state of mind (mens rea) in homicide cases—such as manslaughter, murder, and their numerous sub-categories—highlights both the dubious nature of and juridical need to 134 133F and([ב]שנאה) ascertain a killer's state of mind. The Bible uses terms like hate 135 136 ,135F The Talmud.([ב]שגגה) 134F to counter a case of inadvertent killing([ב]איבה) animosity however, removes emotions from its discussions of these laws and replaces hate and intentional), thus contrasting the two categories as) מזיד animosity with the category of 137 בשוגג intentionally).136F The one who kills) במזיד inadvertently) and killing) בשוגג killing in the (גלות) of exile (כפרה) inadvertently) is afforded both the protection and atonement) .intentionally) is allowed neither) במזיד city of refuge. The one who kills The relationship between the Mishnah at Baba Kamma 32b, which deals with injury and payment, and the Baraita that follows, which deals with homicide and exile, is one of association. The prototypical example of inadvertent homicide in the Bible is a 138 death that results from chopping wood in a forest.137F Although the Biblical case is one where the ax-head detaches from the handle and kills someone, the Mishnah (Makkot 2:1) cites an opinion that expands this case to a woodchip shooting out and killing 139 someone.138F The next Mishnah in the second chapter of tractate Makkot (2:2) deals with 140 situations where domain and trespass139F are considered. These associations between the Mishnah at Baba Kamma 32b and the Mishnayot in Makkot naturally lead the Talmud into a discussion of death by woodchip, trespass, and exile. The Baraita at Baba Kamma 32b reads:

Our Rabbis taught: If one enters the shop of a carpenter without permission and a piece of wood shot off and hit the trespasser] on his face and he died: [the] (וטפחה) carpenter] is exempt. But if he entered with permission then the [carpenter] is liable.

134 See, for example, Numbers 35:20.

135 See, for example, Numbers 35:21.

136 See Numbers 35:11, 15.

is not used in the Biblical passage of Numbers 35. (See, however, Exodus 21:12-14, in מזיד The term 137 which context the verbal root is indeed used.) For a source critical analysis of this passage as well as the :culminating in the construction of this sugya see שוגג קרוב למזיד and ,מזיד ,שוגג evolution of the terms Aharon Shemesh, “Šôgēg Qārôb lě-Mēzîd: lě-Bîrûr Yěṣîrātô Šel ha-Mûśāg běTôrat hā-ʾamôrāʾîm,” Šěnātôn ha-Mišpāt ha-ʿibrî 20 (1997): 399-428. 138 Deuteronomy 19:5.

139 See commentaries of Rambam and Rabbeinu Hananel who do not read the Mishnah in this manner.

domain); And one) רשות is central to both concepts. One can enter into someone else's רשות The word 140 .(permission) רשות can do so with or without

This Baraita is somewhat vague and the Talmud seeks to clarify the parameters of the ruling by inquiring into the nature of the liability in the case where the person who was killed had entered with permission. Rabbi Yosi the son of Ḥanina explains, counter- intuitively, that by ruling that the carpenter is "liable" the Mishnah really means that he is "exempt." He explains his logic by stating that "liable" should really be read as "liable for four things (damages, pain, medical fees, and loss of work)141

Rava does not seem bothered by Rabbi Yosi the son of Ḥanina's apparently blatant misreading of the case of Baraita but rather tries to explain the logic of Rabbi Yosi the son of Ḥanina's ruling in the case where the shop visitor had indeed been killed. Rava argues that the case of a person entering a shop with the shopkeeper's permission is certainly similar to the Biblical case where both parties enter the forest with the de facto permission of each other. So, Rava asks why, according to Rabbi Yosi the son of Ḥanina, would the killer be free from exile? Rava explains that the carpenter shop scenario is not a case of inadvertent killing but rather a case that falls into a category that is somewhere In general, exile is not to .(שוגג קרוב למזיד) in between inadvertent and intentional killing be considered a punishment, but is rather a benefit to the killer because it gives the killer an opportunity for atonement. The person whose homicide is classified as somewhere in is punished by not being (שוגג קרוב למזיד) between inadvertent and intentional killing allowed the opportunity for the atonement that exile affords. The killer does not receive capital punishment because there were no witnesses nor warning issued, both prerequisites for capital punishment. However, the killer is still punished by not being 142 allowed the opportunity to receive atonement through exile.141F Rava then goes on to question his own explanation of Rabbi Yosi the son of Ḥanina's ruling by comparing it to a case where a court-appointed scourger who, in 143 and (הוסיף לו רצועה אחת) meting out corporal punishment to an offender,142F adds one lash

141 In rabbinic law personal injury is assessed as a composite of five modes, the four listed here as well as embarrassment. Payment for embarrassment is only required when the personal injury was intentional. (Mishnah Baba Kamma 8:1) 142 This conception of the role of exile as an opportunity for atonement rather than as a way to protect oneself from the blood avenger is made possible by the fact that there were no cities of refuge and therefore no blood avengers in the rabbinic period. (See Shemesh, “Šôgēg Qārôb lě-Mēzîd: lě-Bîrûr Yěṣîrātô Šel ha- Mûśāg běTôrat hā-ʾamôrāʾîm,” 427-428.)

143 One who transgresses a negative Biblical commandment is liable to lashes. (There are a few exceptions to this rule.) This law is derived from an exegesis of Deuteronomy 25:2-3 (Sifre).

144 the recipient of the flogging dies from that extra stroke.143F In such a case, Rava argues, the category that) שוגג קרוב למזיד the scourger has committed an act that should be deemed is in between intentional and inadvertent) and yet the scourger is allowed the benefit of exile. At this point, after Rava has been debating himself for some eight lines of text, an שׁוגג קרוב למזיד interlocutor enters the discussion. Rav Shimi offers that it is not a case of (the category that is in between intentional and inadvertent) because the circumstances of the case are where the scourger lost track of his count. In such a case it would indeed be the category that is in between) שׁוגג קרוב למזיד inadvertent) rather that) שׁוגג considered intentional and inadvertent) and that is the reason why the scourger is allowed the benefit of exile. What happens next in the text is ambiguous at the level of language. Once again, as was the case with the Baba Batra and Menahot parallels of the previous chapter, the b"). The") "ב" ambiguity is driven by the uncertain meaning of the prepositional marker טפח ליה רבא can denote knocking, tapping, hitting, or striking. The phrase טפח word

can therefore either mean that Rava tapped Rav Shimi onU U his sandal or that "בסנדליה" 145 Rava struck Rav Shimi withU U his sandal.144F The first interpretation would be akin to 146 tapping someone on the shoulder,145F either to get his attention or to make a friendly point. 147 The second interpretation would either be intended as an insult146F or as a way of 148 149 demonstrating his intellectual superiority147F to Rav Shimi.148F

144 The rabbinic conception of Biblical corporal punishment was that the offender would receive 39 lashes (—the Bible has 40.) Since 39 lashes was enough to kill some people an assessment was made how many lashes the offender could tolerate and was then sentenced to a lower number of lashes in multiples of three. So for instance, if it was assessed that one could only tolerate 20 lashes then that person would be given 18 (Mishnah Makkot 3:10-11). However, the case we are dealing with would be one where the offender was assessed 18 lashes and the scourger meted out 19. 145 Either kicking him or removing his sandal and striking him with it. It should be noted that "his" is also ambiguous here.

146 It helps to imagine them both sitting on the floor while engaged in conversation.

147 Richard Kalmin comments on a similar occurrence of this phrase at Baba Batra 22a, arguing that both interpretations signify contempt. [Richard Kalmin, Sages, Stories, Authors, and Editors in rabbinic Babylonia (Brown Judaic Studies, 1994). p.6 note 25.] Kalmin's assumption is based on a presupposition of who is doing the sandal tapping in that case. In the Baba Batra passage, it is ambiguous whether it is Rav Dimi or Rav Adda who is doing the action. The Paris 1337 manuscript of Baba Batra certainly runs counter to Kalmin's assumption. In addition, the third time this phrase is used in the Bavli certainly seems to have it as an attention getting device (Moed Kattan 25a). Rashi's comment there is quite telling: "like a person who touches his friend's foot secretly in order that those standing around won't hear [what he then says]" i.e. as a way of getting him to lean in. Rashi does not compare it to someone who kicks someone under the table in order to make a point that no one would observe. This is a subtle but telling difference. (See version quoted in Ein Ya'akov). I maintain that in our text it is certainly ambiguous and Rashi's commentary here, as in Moed Kattan, offers both possibilities and refuses to decide between the two. (It should be noted that whereas Rashi reads both possibilities in the Baba Kamma and Moed Kattan passages, without deciding between the two, he only offers the "insult" interpretation in the Baba Batra passage.

148 Barry Wimpheimer reads the phrase as it appears at Baba Batra 22a in this manner. Wimpfheimer, Narrating the Law, 140-142. 54

After this physical display, Rava counters that it is the judge who is the one doing the counting, not the scourger. Therefore the scourger, not paying heed to the judge's count, should be considered acting on his own. As a result it would indeed be a case of the category that is in between intentional and inadvertent). Rav Shimi) שוגג קרוב למזיד responds to Rava and argues that it must be a case where it was the judge who made the error counting and therefore the scourger is not to blame at all. Consequently the The Talmud continues its .(שוגג) scourgee's death would be considered inadvertent discussion, for a page or so, coming up with all kinds of different cases and explaining them away in the manner that Rav Shimi does in our text. Rava's original explanation of 150 Rabbi Yosi the son of Ḥanina's ruling and the resultant dialectic exchange149F is recapitulated and restructured in two different ways throughout the remainder of the sugya. Rather than detail that discussion, I will focus on the effect that that the seemingly whether Rava hit) טפח ליה רבא בסנדליה impertinent information contained in the phrase him with his own sandal or Rava tapped Rav Shimi on Rav Shimi's sandal) has on the reader's understanding of the give and take of the legal arguments made in this local section of the larger sugya. The reader of this passage in the Talmud, when encountering the seemingly whether Rava hit him with his own sandal or) טפח ליה רבא בסנדליה superfluous phrase Rava tapped Rav Shimi on Rav Shimi's sandal), is left to wonder what could be the point of a superfluous phrase that is also ambiguous. Unless, of course, ambiguity is the point. hit) echoes the original Baraita's use of the word to describe the woodchip) טפח The word the trespasser in the face. They are practically identical (וטפחה) shooting off and hitting רצועה sandal) also echoes the) סנדל words and share the same root (Ṭ F Ḥ). The word (strap) of the case of the court appointed scourger in the following manner. The words sandal) are closely associated with each other in the Talmud both) סנדל strap) and) רצועה 151 152 as a sandal strap150F and as two of the four tools of a judge,151F who himself is a player in 153 טפח ליה רבא בסנדליה multiple aspects of this drama.152F The appearance of the phrase

149 Perhaps the image of Rava debating himself should be construed as Rava delivering a lecture. Rav Shimi would then be someone who was in attendance at this lecture and raises a point that opposes his teacher. If this Rav Shimi was Rav Shimi the son of Ashi then he indeed would have been a student of Rava's. Here he is called Rav Shimi the Nehardean. It is unclear whether these are the same people or that Rav Shimi the Nehardean is a different person and a contemporary of Rava. Whether one conceives of Rav Shimi as a student or colleague of Rava would certainly play into how one conceives of their interaction.

".literally, "taking and throwing" or "taking and shaking - שקלא וטריא .i.e 150

151 See for example: Baba Metzia 78b and 106b; Ḥagigah 23a; Hulin 123b; Yevamot 102a; Sotah 40a; and Shabbat 111b.

(ḥalîṣâ) חליצה Along with a stick and a horn (Sanhedrin 7b). A judge uses the sandal during the 152 ceremony (in order to break a levirate bond.)

judges) play a central role in our passage. There is the) דיינים It should be noted that two types of 153 mythical judge of the Baraita who is, for the rabbis who constructed that Baraita, from a long forgotten era of Biblically sanctioned capital and corporal punishment. [Mishnah Makkot 10:1 is evidence for the fact 55

(whether Rava hit him with his own sandal or Rava tapped Rav Shimi on Rav Shimi's sandal) in this passage— whether interpreted as an attention getting device, sign of contempt, or posture that Rava uses to express his own superiority over Rav Shimi— 154 does not seem to add anything to the narration of the story.153F The approach that I טפח ליה רבא advocate focuses on how the appearance of the ambiguous phrase whether Rava hit him with his own sandal or Rava tapped Rav Shimi on Rav)בסנדליה Shimi's sandal) affects the experience of the reader—how it operates on the reader both outside of, or above, the temporal flow of the passage and against the linear logic of the passage. If this passage in the Talmud is a description, or retelling, of an actual conversation between Rava and Rav Shimi, then one of the two actions had to be the one that took place in that historical encounter. Either Rava hit Rav Shimi with his own sandal or Rava tapped Rav Shimi on his sandal in an attempt to casually draw Rav 155 Shimi's attention.154F In addition, Rava must have a particular intention. The one who documented this encounter between Rava and Rav Shimi could have used other language to describe the event if the point was to convey to readers, or hearers, of the story the events that actually took place during that encounter. This historian also could have 156 chosen to describe Rava's intent or state of mind.155F However, as a literary construction, טפח ליה רבא בסנדליה whether or not such an encounter ever really took place, the phrase (whether interpreted as Rava hitting Rav Shimi with his own sandal or as Rava tapping Rav Shimi's sandal) serves an important function within the context of this otherwise entirely legal discussion. Had the Talmud merely stated "Rava said" without the use of additional descriptive language, then the logic of the legal arguments would have taken center stage. However, by adding this seemingly superfluous "hitting/tapping" phrase a phrase whose actual language also alerts the reader to various— (טפח ליה רבא בסנדליה) 157 important moments within the linear flow of the Talmud's rhetorical arguments156F —the Talmud highlights, for the reader, the ambiguous nature of the intention of Rava's action.

that capital punishment had long been discontinued by the time of the Baraita's construction.] And then there is the Rabbi of the time of Rava and Rav Shimi who considered themselves judges and considered these items the tools of their trade. [For the rabbinic discourse on capital punishment as a constructed rhetorical tool rather than reflecting an actual historical occurrence, as well as for a summary of previous scholarship on this matter, see Beth A. Berkowitz, Execution and Invention: Death Penalty Discourse in Early rabbinic and Christian Cultures (Oxford University Press US, 2006), 3-64.

154 Certainly not in the manner of Wimpfheimer's reading of this term at Baba Batra 22a. See footnote 148.

155 See footnote 146.

156 Omniscient narration is quite common in the Bavli.

contains two words other than Rava's name ,טפח ליה רבא בסנדליה ,The ambiguous hitting/tapping phrase 157 redirects the טפח The verb .סנדל and the noun טפח and ambiguous pronouns. Those words are the verb sanda) is a word closely) סנדל ,wood shot off and] hit) of the Baraita. Addtionally]) וטפחה reader to the strap of the extra lash that killed the scourgee) throughout the Bavli. (See) רצועה related to the word examples listed in footnote 24), directing the reader's attention to the case Rava uses when explaining Rabbi Yosi the son of Ḥanina's ruling. 56

Instead of asking the reader to choose between two readings, the text offers an ambiguity of reading. This ambiguity is an index of the ambiguity of Rava’s action and thereby highlights the ambiguous nature of intention in general as perceived by the outside observer, whether this observer be the court, as is the case in the Talmudic טפח ליה ) passage, or the reader. The superfluously ambiguous "hitting/tapping" phrase therefore serves to undermine the logical conclusion of this sugya, which (רבא בסנדליה the category that is - שוגג קרוב למזיד) deals with the creation of a new category of intention in between intentional and inadvertent), a new category which itself calls into question .(intentional) מזיד inadvertent) and) שוגג the very categories of

Example 2 (Niddah 64b): Is Shmuel's Boastful Expertise in Exotic Sexual Techniques Meant to Be Taken Seriously?

As was the case with the first example (Baba Kamma 32b), the forthcoming analysis of Niddah 64b (example 2) will also center on the effect of linguistic ambiguity on the meaning- making process. For Niddah 64b, I will examine the role that the appearance of an ambiguous phrase—one that also appears in multiple other Talmud passages, though less ambiguous in those contexts—plays in the global Talmud reader's attempt to come to terms with the meaning of the linear logic of the local Niddah 64b passage being read. The Mishnah at Niddah 64b discusses the laws regarding sexual intercourse during the first night, or few nights, of a virgin's marriage. Biblical law 158 prohibits sexual intercourse with a woman during her menstrual period.157F The question at play in the Mishnah is in which scenarios one can assume that blood found after intercourse with a virgin is to be deemed a flesh wound, the result of tearing the hymen, and in which scenarios one must assume that the blood is menstrual. If the blood is the result of a flesh wound then the woman is deemed ritually pure and intercourse may be repeated a second time. If the blood is menstrual then the woman is considered ritually impure and intercourse may not be repeated a second time. The Talmud (64b) introduces a debate between two Amoraim, Rabbi Ḥanina and Rabbi Assi. The case debated is a scenario where a man had sex with a virgin and did not find blood. He then had sex a second time and did find blood. Rabbi Ḥanina deems the woman impure under the assumption that since she did not bleed after the first intercourse, we can assume that she was not actually a physical virgin at the time of the first intercourse. Therefore, the blood found after the second intercourse is assumed to be menstrual. According to the rabbinic conception, not all women who were halakhic

158 A menstruating woman is also prohibited from engaging in sexual intercourse. I only phrase this sentence the way I do because, in the verse, the Torah's directive is aimed at the man. [For a discussion of the rabbinic conception of the Holiness Code being directed only to men and the Qumran Sect's understanding that women are also meant, see Aharon Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the rabbis (University of California Press, 2009).] 57

virgins—women who had never had sexual intercourse—were physical virgins, whether they had lost their hymens to an accident or to the natural deterioration of the hymen with age.159 Rabbi Assi, on the other hand, considers the woman who only bled after the second act of intercourse as ritually pure because he believes that it should be assumed that her hymen remained intact during the first intercourse and only now tore during the second intercourse.160 The blood found after the second intercourse but is exempt therefore from assumed exile to[to be a citythe resultof refuge]." of a flesh When wound the Mishnah and not menstrualstated that blood. the carpenter The Talmud was liable presents it merely these twomeant opinions to say thatand haddiscusses the shop each visitor Amora's not beenrationale killed in thenthe following the carpenter manner. would have had to pay various costs and reparations, such as medical bills and workman's compensation. However, had theIt is shop stated: visitor If indeeda man beenhad sexkilled and (in did which not casefind costsblood and and reparations would not be applicable)then had sex then again the carpenterand did find would blood: not even Rabbi be Ḥrequiredanina says to flee to a city of refuge, the standard punishment for manslaughter. Rabbi Yosi the son of Ḥanina seems

159to Theignore ramifications the fact thatof this the possibility Mishnah (as is well dealing as the rabbinicwith a caseunderstanding where the of it)shop as it visitor relates tohad virginity claimsindeed will been be discussedkilled by at the length flying in Chapter woodchip. 4.

160 The terminology I use here, "intact" and "torn," is not meant to reflect a physical reality but is merely a descriptive convention. Since the point of this section of this chapter (as well as chapter 4) is to examine how the rabbis struggled with the concept of "virginity" vis-à-vis the physical reality, I choose to use terminology that works well to highlight that struggle. Hanne Blank explains the problematics of this terminology in relation to the physical realities of hymens as follows.

It seems strange, since we think of them as being static unless they are "torn" or "broken," but hymens change shape all by themselves. Between birth and age three...hymens can go through quite a bit of alteration in shape and size. The changes take place painlessly, silently, and virtually unnoticeably, without the girl in question...noticing any change...the best way to think of it is that like other body parts, the hymen continues to develop after birth, and this means that sexual penetration is absolutely not required for a hymen to be different or look different from one day, one week, or one month to the next. This calls into question the very notion of the "intact" hymen: if the hymen can change all by itself, can we ever accurately call it "intact" or "unaltered"?

Hanne Blank, Virgin: The Untouched History (Bloomsbury Publishing USA, 2008).

These are not terms that the rabbis themselves would choose to use. The Rabbis do not use terminology for e.g. terms like "torn" or) (בתולים) loss of virginity status that refers directly to what happened to the hymen see, for example, Yerushalmi Sotah 3:4) but this) אבד broken".) They might, though rarely, use the root" word can equally be translated as "lost her hymen" or "her hymen was destroyed." They instead conceive of the hymen in one of five ways. One, they work backwards from the appearance of genital blood and try that would remove a woman from (מכה) to assess if the appearance of genital blood is related to a wound the category of a physical virgin. Two, they work with an understanding that the hymen repairs itself up until the age of three (see, for example, Niddah 45a). Three, they understand the hymen to disappear is considered to either have (בוגרת) gradually over time, so that the hymen of a twelve and a half year old at מקצת בתולים and כלו לה בתוליה diminished or be completely gone. (See, for example, the use of the terms see Yevamot 34b.) or) (מיעכה) Yevamot 59a.) Four, the hymen can be removed (or dissolved) with friction from "taking large steps" (Shabbat 63b). It is unclear in either of these cases if blood (נושרות) "fall away" to a bolt on a door (Ketubot 10a). [Ketubot ,(משל) ever appears. Five, they compare it, by way of parable 10b presents other possibilities why a virgin woman might not bleed upon a sex act but they are not necessarily related to a conception of the hymen. It also appears, from Ketubot 10b, that the existence of a hymen is not something that can be verified visually.] 58

that the woman is deemed ritually impure; And Rabbi Assi says that the woman is deemed ritually pure. [The Talmud explains:] Rabbi Ḥanina says that she is ritually impure because if the blood was the blood of virginity then it would have appeared initially (i.e. during the first intercourse). And Rabbi Assi says that she is ritually pure [because] perhaps [the first sex act] happened like [the scenario of] Shmuel, as Shmuel said: "I am able to have sex [with a virgin] a number of times without [the appearance of] blood.161 And how would Rabbi Ḥanina respond [to Rabbi Assi's 162 .רב גובריה argument]?161F Shmuel is different because the translation of this phrase —"שאני שמואל דרב גובריה") will be discussed presently).

as an abstract noun, means something like ,גבר Etymologically, the root as an adjective, means great ,רב manliness, potency, strength, force, or power. The root ,should be translated as: because his potency דרב גובריה or large. Accordingly, the phrase 163 strength, force, power, or manliness was great or large.162F Any of these translations would work to undermine the idea that the linear logic of the Talmud means to express— that Shmuel was able to have sex with an individual woman many times while her hymen רב remained intact. The image of great manliness, force, or power, evoked by the words if not that of a man with a large penis, would certainly not be that of a man who ,גובריה would engage in the delicate act of sex that is presumably required in order to keep the virgin's hymen from tearing—assuming such an act is even possible, especially when 164 repeated many times, as Shmuel boasts.163F

bending/tilting/leaning?) which) הטייה In the rabbinic imagination, there was a sexual technique called 161 allowed one to have sex without tearing the hymen. (See Ketubot 6b.)

162 Literally: And the other?

163 The most interesting etymologically driven reading of this phrase is probably that of the Samuel the son of David Moses Halevi Segal [Poland, 1625-1681.]) In his work Naḥalat Shiv'ah (chapter 60), Segal states that what is meant here is that Shmuel was so potent that he was able to impregnate a virgin by shooting his seed like an arrow into the womb of a virgin without actually penetrating her fully. [Samuel ben David Moses, Sefer Naḥalat Shivʻah (Amshṭilerdam [i.e. Amsterdam]: S. ben D.M. ha-Leṿi, 427AD).] Segal is certainly reading this text in concert with a parallel text (Ḥagigah 15a) in which Shmuel makes the same boast and where the topics of seed shooting like an arrow and virgin pregnancies are broached. The phrase does not appear in the parallel at Ḥagigah 15a. Jacob Ettlinger (1798-1871, Germany) takes issue רב גובריה means "great expertise" and not "great potency" at Niddah רב גובריה with Segal's reading precisely because 24b. (Jacob Ettlinger, Sefer ʻArukh La-Ner ʻal Masekhet Nidah: Bo Niḳbetsu Ḥidushim U-Veʼurim (Jerusalem: s.n., 725).glosses to Niddah 64b.) 164 The Rabbis most likely constructed their conception of physical possibility from a combination of real scientific knowledge, traditional folk science, and a desire to see reality in the Biblical conception of the physical world. It is the degree of negotiation of—and trust and distrust for—these various sources and how that negotiation is expressed literarily in this Niddah 64b passage that is the subject of this section. As 59

The reader that the Talmud assumes—that reader who is familiar with the book in its entirety, the reader expected to understand every cryptic reference to obscure passages 165 רב strewn throughout the Talmud's close to two million words164F —knows that the phrase is not only idiomatic but additionally has a special association with Shmuel. Aside גובריה appears a mere three other times רב גובריה from its occurrence at Niddah 64b, the phrase 166 in the Talmud. Shmuel plays a role in two of those instances.165F The first, in terms of proximity to Niddah 64b, appears at Niddah 25b. This passage is also of note because the

is the case with any anatomical part of the human body, the shape and elasticity of the hymen differs greatly from person to person. [See, for example, Krishan Vij, Textbook Of Forensic Medicine And Toxicology: Principles And Practice (Elsevier India, 2008).[On the general lack of knowledge about hymens in the ancient world, see Kathleen Coyne Kelly, Performing Virginity and Testing Chastity in the Middle Ages (Psychology Press, 2000).

165 The set of Bavli texts which will be discussed in chapter 3 of this dissertation represents a typical instance where a Bavli passage (Ketubot 11a) expects its reader to already know the conclusion of a passage that appears several tractates, and hundreds of pages, later in the Bavli (Gittin 33a). In explicating that passage, I will further refine the concept of the "Bavli reader."

166 The only time that this phrase is used outside of a direct relationship with Shmuel is at Avodah Zara 8a. Although Shmuel is directly involved in that discussion he is neither the one saying the phrase nor its at Avodah Zarah 8a is similar to its appearance in our text רב גובריה subject. The appearance of the phrase The subject of the expression is .שאני__דרב גובריה in the sense that it is used as part of the larger expression Moses and the meaning of the expression in the Avodah Zarah context so vague that it is difficult to is being summoned. The Bavli at Avodah Zarah 7b גבר understand which etymological aspect of root relates a debate between Tannaim regarding the correct order of prayer. Should one first ask God for his own needs and then offer praise or vice versa? One of the opinions coincides with a verse from the Bible. In Deuteronomy 3:24-25, Moses first praises God and only then asks God to allow him to cross over the ,שאני משה דרב גובריה Jordan and see the Promised Land. The Bavli argues that this is no proof because ,Is Moses's difference to be found in his potency, strength .רב גובריה meaning: Moses is different because force, power, or manliness? It seems that none of these definitions would satisfyingly explain why Moses prayed in the order he did. Rashi to Avodah Zarah explains that it is the strength of Moses's wisdom and deeds that allow him to pray in that particular order. [It should be noted that the phrase appears with a In that instance, it appears that "expertise" is meant ".ורב גבריה" :slightly different spelling at Menaḥot 61b in a manner similar to the phrase's meaning at Niddah 25b, a text that will be discussed presently. Rashi ad. גובריה loc. certainly reads it that way. The Paris manuscript to Menaḥot 61b indeed has the word spelled which כמה נפיש גובריה The Vatican manuscript to Niddah 20a has the expression .גבריה rather than contextually means "how great is the man." The Vatican manuscript of Niddah 20a is probably a which is how the phrase appears in the rest of the manuscripts as כמה נפיש גברא corruption of the phrase also appears in the גובריה well as at Ḥullin 7a, where it also means "how great is the man." The word Munich manuscript to Yevamot 17a, a text which will later be treated in chapter 3. In that instance, the what a man and how great [he would be]") in") מה גברא ומה גברא word appears in a phrase which reads as in גובריה the rest of the manuscripts. It seems fair to argue that the cause for the appearance of the spelling the Vatican manuscript to Niddah 20a and the Paris manuscript to Menaḥot 61b, as well as, on the other in all other MSS to Menaḥot 61b (and the appearance of the גבריה hand, the appearance of the spelling of in all other MSS Yevamot 17a) is both the ambiguity of the meaning of this phrase in the גברא spelling of other passages in which it appears as well as an attempt on the part of the copyists to align, or disjoin, the various meanings of the various texts with, or against, each other.]

Shmuel) שאני שמואל דרב גובריה is included as part of the larger phrase of רב גובריה phrase is different because....), as was the case in our Niddah 64b passage.

Niddah 24b and Yevamot 104a: The Formation of a Web of Meaning

Niddah 25b addresses two seemingly contradictory stories concerning Shmuel and his legal rulings regarding the nature of miscarriages. According to biblical law, a 167 woman who gives birth to a child is subject to special purity laws.166F If the child is male, she is subject to the purity laws of a menstruant for seven days. She then begins counting htirty-three days during which the appearance of blood is considered the result of the birthing process and not menstrual blood. Thereafter, if she were to see blood then it would be considered menstrual blood. However, if the child was female then the woman is subject to the purity laws of a menstruant for fourteen days, after which she counts sixty-six days in which the appearance of blood is considered the result of the birthing process rather than menstrual blood. The same applies for a woman who miscarries. However, these rules only apply if the woman miscarries a fetus. If the woman miscarries an embryo then the rules do not apply. In the rabbinic worldview, an embryo 168 forty days after conception.167F (ולד) becomes a fetus The two contradictory stories involving Shmuel are as follows. In the first story, Shmuel tells one of his students not to give a practical ruling as to whether a miscarriage is an embryo or fetus unless the aborted fetus has hair. A fetus certainly does not grow hair until long after 40 days after conception. Therefore only when the questionable miscarriage has hair can one be sure that it is a fetus. Another student relates that Shmuel 169 explained this ruling to him as hedging his bet on both ends.168F In other words, the woman must assume that the miscarriage was indeed a fetus and observe menstrual purity

167 Leviticus, chapter 12.

168 See Mishnah Niddah 3:7 for the general rule; Berakhot 60a (regarding Leah and Dinah and sex assignment); Sotah 2a, Sanhedrin 22a, and Moed Katan 18b (40 days is specified in the London, Munich, Columbia, Vatican 108, Vatican 134 manuscripts but not in Oxford nor the Pesaro or Vilna prints) parallels forty days before the forming) ארבעים יום קודם יצירת הולד בת קול יוצאת ואומרת בת פלוני לפלוני where the phrase of the fetus, a heavenly voice calls out "the [future] daughter of so and so [will be married] to so and so") implies that the heavenly voice calls out at the time of conception and the embryo becomes a fetus at forty days. There is an opinion in Mishnah Niddah 3:7 that holds that a male fetus is formed after 40 days but a female fetus is only formed after 80 days. [For the fetus and embryo in rabbinic literature see Gwynn Kessler, Conceiving Israel: The Fetus in rabbinic Narratives (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009). I thank Charlotte Fonrobert for alerting me to this work.]

ספוקי מספקא ליה ועביד/ואזיל הכא :This principle is expressed in the Bavli (though not explicitly here) as 169 He was doubtful; and he [therefore] acted stringently in both cases."). [See for") לחומרא והכא לחומרא example, the Bavli's discussion of the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshu'a on the previous page (Niddah 25a); Berachot 36a; and Beitzah 4b.

laws for fourteen days (just in case the fetus was female) but she does not enjoy the privilege of the thirty-three or sixty-six clean days (i.e. if she were to see blood during this period then she would indeed be deemed a menstruant). This implies that Shmuel was doubtful concerning one's ability to assess the precise age of an embryo or fetus. Had he been sure, then he would not need to follow the stricter requirements of both possibilities. In the second story, a miscarriage is brought before Shmuel for assessment and he declares that the fetus is forty-one days old. Shmuel then calculates backwards to the date that the woman last used the ritual bath and discovers that it was less than forty days 170 earlier.169F Shmuel therefore decides that" the woman's husband must have impregnated 171 her while she was ritually impure.170F The rabbinic authorities tied the husband up until 172 he admitted to his indiscretion.171F The degree of precision in which Shmuel acted in this case demonstrates that he was not doubtful about one's ability to discern the exact age of a fetus. The Talmud answers this apparent contradiction regarding Shmuel's view on this the translation of this phrase will be discussed) שאני שמואל דרב גובריה :matter by stating presently). From the context, the phrase presumably means that Shmuel is different than גבר his students in the sense that he is an expert. Although, etymologically, the noun ,great) רב potency, strength, force, power, or manliness) combined with the adjective) רב large) does not mean "expert" the context implies that this is in fact what the idiom .means in this instance גובריה If the reader returns to the original Niddah 64b passage armed with this makes perfect sense. Shmuel was able שאני שמואל דרב גובריה information, then the phrase to have sex with a physical virgin many times while her hymen remained intact because 173 he was an expert on such matters.172F But why not use a different formulation to express

170 Apparently the dates of the woman's use of the ritual bath was a matter of public record.

171 According to rabbinic law, a woman must wait seven days after her menstrual period and then immerse in the ritual bath before having sexual intercourse.

.Perhaps this phrase implies that they imprisoned him until he confessed .כפתיה ואודי 172

bending/tilting/leaning?) is discussed at) הטייה It is interesting to note that when the sexual technique of 173 is used denoting "expert." In a discussion of whether or not one בקי Ketubot 6b (see footnote 161) the term may engage in a first sex act on the Sabbath the Bavli discusses whether such a sex act will definitely result in a wound. If that were the case then it would be prohibited. The text develops as follows:

לא כהללו בבליים שאין בקיאין בהטייה אלא יש בקיאין בהטייה אם כן טורד למה לשאינו בקי יאמרו בקי מותר שאינו בקי אסור רוב בקיאין הן

(Not like those Babylonians who are not experts in "leaning" but rather there are those who are experts in "leaning." If [he is an expert in this sexual technique] then why would he be nervous [i.e why would he be permitted to skip the reading of the Shema on account of nervousness as the Bavli had previously declared]? that was referring to one who is not an expert. So why not say that an expert is permitted [to engage in 62

this idea? Why use a phrase that literally appears to mean the opposite of what it is intended to express?174 in connection with Shmuel both רב גובריה The third appearance of the phrase complicates and sheds light on the matter. According to Biblical law, in order to break 175 174F The Talmud at.(חליצה) the levirate bond, one must perform a ritual called ḥaliẓa Yevamot 104a assumes that one must perform this ritual in front of witnesses, using a sandal, and during the day. Rabbah the son of Ḥiyya of Ctesifon performed this ritual by himself, using a shoe, and at night. Each of these three aspects of the performance of the ritual has a precedent. However, the precedents do not necessarily conform with the majority opinions on each matter. Upon hearing of Rabbah's actions, Shmuel

meaning, how great is his strength that he acted ,כמה U רב Uגובריה דעביד כיחידאה :commented 176 in accordance with the minority opinion.175F Here the phrase appears to more readily conform to its literal sense, rather than the idiomatic sense that we ascribed to the phrase when used at Niddah 25b. The phrase here could also mean "expertise" but it is more likely to mean "power" or "strength" in the sense of "authority." as used at Yevamot 104a does not רב גובריה In addition to the fact that the phrase appear to conform to the meaning connoted at Niddah 25b, two other factors are

a first sex act on the Sabbath] while a non-expert is prohibited [from doing so]? Most people are experts [in this sexual technique.])

at Niddah 25b recalls the text of Ketubot 6b and therefore דרב גובריה Rashi's comment on the words הוא בקי ואין :highlights the association between the three passages Niddah 64b, Niddah 25b, and Ketubot 6b (.He is an expert, but not everyone is an expert) כולן בקיאין

174 It should be noted that the Bavli also operates on an aesthetic level that is poetic beyond the meaning of words. How words sound or look can also play a role in which words are used to express an idea. The which is the start of a new but related ,אמר רב בוגרת in this passage are רב גובריה words that follow :are practically anagrams, especially the way they appear in MS Munich רב בוגרת and רב גובריה .discussion Although the scribe who wrote the Munich manuscript did not have the best . דרב גוברי' א' רב בוגר' handwriting, to say the least, he apparently paid attention to certain visual details and oftentimes lines up similar words and phrases appearing on consecutive lines in his text. Chapters 3 and 5 will briefly address, and provide examples of, the role of phonetic or sonic considerations—how the text sounds—in the Bavli's literary aesthetic.

175 The Bible describes a scenario where a man dies childless. In such a case, his brother must either marry ḥalîṣâ) ritual. The laws of the) חליצה or perform the (יבום his widow (this is called levirate marriage or levirate marriage are detailed in Deuteronomy (25:5-10) and in tractate Yevamot of the Bavli. The Biblical ḥalîṣâ) ritual basically involves the following: the man refusing to marry his brother's widow; the) חליצה woman verbally alerting the city elders to his refusal; the elders attempting to persuade the man to change his mind; and finally, the woman removing the brother's footwear and spitting (either in his face or in front of him) while making the proclamation "thus shall be done to the man who does not build his brother's house."

176 In following the Bavli's give and take, the reader discovers that Shmuel's issue with Rabbah lies more in the fact that he performed the ritual alone than in the fact that he performed it at night or with a shoe. חליצה has a dual meaning. He acted alone in performing the דעביד כיחידאה Therefore, Shmuel's comment of (ḥalîṣâ), just as he acted alone in rendering his interpretation of the law (by following the minority opinion, (".יחיד ורבים הלכה כרבים"as in the phrase—יחיד which is generally referred to as 63

important for the reader of Niddah 64b. The first is that it is Shmuel who makes the comment. The second is that the comment is sarcastic. At first glance it might seem that Shmuel is complimenting Rabbah the son of Ḥiyya of Ctesifon, marveling at Rabbah's sense of authority and the confidence Rabbah feels in the power of his own opinion 177 against the many. But the reality is that Shmuel is mocking him.176F This becomes clear as the reader encounters the next few words that appear in the Talmud immediately What was bothering) ?מאי קשיא :following Shmuel's statement. The Talmud asks [Shmuel]?) Obviously Shmuel was bothered by Rabbah's actions and therefore his comment about Rabbah's greatness was meant to be taken censoriously. Returning to the reader of Niddah 64b, this reader is confronted with a logical argument concerning whether or not a woman who was a halakhic virgin—a woman who had never had sex —can still be considered a physical virgin after she had sex for the first time. Does the fact that she did not bleed during her first act of intercourse mean that she was not in fact a physical virgin or does it mean that she was still assumed to be a physical virgin and therefore might bleed from her second act of intercourse? What is at stake is whether or not her subsequent bleeding would be considered menstrual blood or the blood of a wound, the result of her hymen tearing. If the blood is considered menstrual blood, then she would be ritually impure and therefore not allowed to engage in a second sex act. If the blood is considered the blood of a wound, then she would be allowed to engage in a second sex act. The Bavli cites Shmuel's boast as a proof that it is 178 possible for a physical virgin to no longer be a halakhic virgin.177F That being the case, then when she does subsequently bleed, the blood would not be deemed menstrual blood. The terminology with which the Bavli expresses this possibility draws on the imagery of two other Bavli passages. One passage, by providing an idiomatic interpretive option, The other passage introduces .(רב גובריה) subverts the literal meaning of the actual words .expresses a sarcastic use of language רב גובריה the possibility that the phrase רב The local reader of the Niddah 64b passage, when confronted with the words already knows from the rhetorical structure of the passage that the words are ,גובריה meant to explain how a man can have sex with a virgin while her hymen remains intact. The words themselves however, when read literally, seem to imply the opposite— whether translated as "large manhood" or "great force, potency, or strength." The global reader of the Bavli understands, from Niddah 25b, that these words are meant to imply "great expertise" and that would certainly explain their use at Niddah 64b. This reader, however, also knows, from Yevamot 104a, that these words can also be tinged with sarcasm. The result of reading Niddah 64b in conjunction with both Niddah 25b and runs רב גובריה Yevamot 104a is that the reader understands that the idiomatic meaning of counter to its etymological, or literal, meaning. The idiomatic meaning of the phrase accords with the linear logic of the Talmud at Niddah 64b and serves to explain how

177 Rashi (ad. loc.) feels the need to point this out.

178 A woman would also be a physical virgin but not a halakhic virgin if she had had anal intercourse. For the rabbis, heterosexual anal intercourse and vaginal intercourse have equal status as a sex act. [See, for example, Kiddushin 22b]. The Biblical basis for this rabbinic view regarding anal sex will be discussed at some length in chapter 5 of this dissertation. 64

Shmuel was able to have sex with a virgin many times while her hymen remained intact. This reader, however, is left to wonder whether or not this claim should be taken seriously. The Talmud could have used any number of words to explain the idea that Shmuel's expertise in exotic sexual techniques makes him different than the general coupled with their רב גובריה population. However, the literal meaning of the words sarcastic usage at Yevamot 104a work to undermine the very idea those words mean to express. Niddah 64b, therefore, when read as part of a web of passages, reflects and represents a conflicted state or ambivalent attitude toward Shmuel's boast. The fact that it was Shmuel himself who used the phrase sarcastically at Yevamot 104a subtly highlights this ambivalence. It is as if the Talmud has turned Shmuel's own doubts about Rabbah the son of Ḥiyya of Ctesifon back onto Shmuel.

Conclusion

If Empson is correct that ambiguity works to express an ambivalence in the mind of the author, then the first example (Baba Kamma 32b) demonstrates a conflicted state of mind in the author of that sugya. Alternatively, if the sugya is seen as the product of many authors over a long period of time and the ambiguous "hitting/tapping" phrase is viewed as a later addition to the sugya, then the ambiguity represents a conflicted state of mind in either the editor who added that ambiguous phrase or the hand that shaped the final version of the sugya that we now read. The second example (Niddah 64b) dealt with the effect of an ambiguity as it relates to the interaction between multiple sugyot. It is impossible in this instance to diachronically reconstruct the order of editorial events in each of the three sugyot at play in the network of meanings fostered by the interplay of (Shmuel is different) שאני שמואל those sugyot. It is unclear which of two appearances of (great expertise) רב גובריה came first and in what order each of the three appearances of were added to the text of the Talmud. We might therefore be limited in concluding that the ambivalence expressed in the second example is the reflection of the overall ambivalence of the culture that produced the final edits to those passages of the Talmud that were cited in the second example. However, as I will argue in later chapters, by citing numerous examples of this phenomenon throughout the Talmud, it is more likely that the modes of ambivalent expression argued for in this chapter is the result of hundreds of years of artisans, editors, and oral transmitters, re-crafting an already closed Talmudic text—a text which, at the time of the activity of these literary artisans, had already been largely considered structurally fixed. The Bavli was already widely known and disseminated. However, these scribes, redactors, readers, or transmitters felt comfortable making these changes at to the text at the level of language because, for 179 them, it was a normative part of the text's dissemination.178F These literary artisans continued the rhetorical process of the Talmud—a process that works to subvert

179 Gregor Schoeler, James Edward Montgomery, and Uwe Vagelpohl, The Oral and the Written in Early Islam (Taylor & Francis, 2006), 33-39. 65

resolution in an attempt to continue the Talmudic debate—long after the Talmud was fixed. They accomplished this by inserting or exchanging alternate words or phrases within the body of the already fixed text. These words or phrases work to either subvert the logical conclusions of individual sugyot or create networks between webs of Talmud passages to the same end.180

180 This idea will be developed throughout the remainder of this dissertation, especially in chapter 4 and 5. 66

Chapter 3: Ambiguity and the Process of Making Meaning in a Nonlinear, Self-referencing, and Circular (Global) Text

I am less interested in detailing what a Talmudic passage "means" after all of the pertinent information is fleshed out than examining how the Talmud means. In other words, I am concerned with poetics rather than hermeneutics, the process rather than the result. The facet of the poetics of the Bavli that I wish to explore here is to be found precisely in how the Bavli subverts its own arguments through the particular words it uses to expresses those arguments. By doing so, the Bavli succeeds in continuing that "process of Bavli" found also found within —or originating in—its own actual rhetorical, or logical, arguments. That is, the Superstam continues the work of the Stam, albeit in a subversive manner, at a time when the structural form of the Bavli's argumentation had been, for the most part, sealed. The process of Bavli to which I refer can be defined as a continuous pursuit of questions masquerading as a quest for answers. That is, while the rhetorical structure of the Bavli makes it appear as if the Bavli drives toward resolution, the Bavli, in fact, in most instances, thwarts the resolution to which it seemingly drives. Even in those moments when the individual Bavli passage seems to rest at resolution, I argue, the words that the Bavli employs to reach that resolution subvert that resolution by pointing the reader to other Bavli passages containing the same words.181 This can occur either when the second Bavli passage uses the word differently than the way it is used in the original passage being read, denoting a different meaning for the word, or when the overall message of the second passage in which the word appears controverts the message of the original passage being read. It is this work that takes place at the level of the interactions between sugyot in the book that I deem the work of the Superstam. As detailed in my analysis of the parallel Baraitot concerning the death of Moses in the first chapter (Baba Batra 15a and Menahot 30a), the Bavli's implied reader, when encountering the next set of words on the Talmudic page, anticipates the rhetorical function of those words before actually reading them. As the GB reader moves linearly through a block of text, this reader understands what the Bavli is trying to do long before understanding how it is that the Bavli achieves its goal. This prior understanding, in turn, mediates the subsequent reading. My analysis of the parallel Baraitot at Baba Batra 15a and Menahot 30a—whether the Baraita is struggling with either the postmortem feasibility or the verity of the account of Moses's writing the Torah, and whether Moses wrote the last eight verses of the Bible with tears instead of ink or while crying— focused

181 This notion of the "process of Bavli" will be elaborated upon in the following chapter. 67

on both the role that ambiguous terminology plays in the reader's quest for meaning as well as how ambiguous terminology undermines the linearity of the reading experience. My analysis of the "sandal tapping/hitting" incident of Baba Kamma 32b, in the second chapter, detailed an example of a similar type of linguistic ambiguity and how the ambiguity of a seemingly superfluous phrase operates on the reader. In that case, the ambiguity served to both highlight and call into question an aspect of the logical argument of the passage. The ambiguity worked to express a conflict or ambivalence on the part of the text and its overall commitment to its own rhetorical agenda. The of Baba Kamma 32b did (טפח ליה רבא בסנדליה) ambiguous "sandal tapping/hitting" phrase not play an actual role within the logic of the text as it unfolded. Rather, the ambiguity worked as a literary device that was above and against the linearity of the reading experience. The effect of the phrase did not take place at any particular moment within the linear reading experience. Rather, the ambiguous phrase acted outside of the temporal flow of the words on the page to draw attention to the text's level of commitment to the very reasoning presented in the linear and temporal flow of its argument. In other words, the effect of the ambiguous "sandal tapping/hitting" phrase does not take place, for the reader, at the moment of its appearance in the text. Rather, the phrase exerts its influence at a later moment in time by lingering in the reader's 182 consciousness as the reader moves through later portions of the text.181F The ambiguous phrase was not itself an integral part of the structure of the sugya nor part of its argumentation. I therefore also see here the work of the Superstam. For this sugya, while the Stam engages in an attempt to define how a court is to divine the intentions of a killer, the Superstam undermines that process with the introduction of a superfluous ambiguous phrase that serves to question the Stam's endeavor. My analysis of Shmuel's boast of sexual expertise at Niddah 64b, the second example treated in the previous chapter, dealt with an ambiguous phrase as well. In that case too, the literal meaning of a phrase seems to call the conclusion-driven linear logic

182 Alternatively, a meditation on the moment of impact on the reader of this phrase can be used to call into question Wolfgang Iser's understanding of the reader of the literary text as always being positioned within the text itself. [See chapter one for a discussion of Iser.] In this instance, the reader can be viewed as experiencing the effects of the text by being exposed to a contrast between that interior position and the position of the reader as observer of the textual object from without. As the two examples treated in the previous chapter, as well as the Ketubot 11a example I will treat in this chapter, demonstrate, assessing the actual position of the Talmud reader vis-à-vis the text—whether this relationship is subject-object or one of a moving viewpoint—is a very slippery proposition. [See Wolfgang Iser, The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980).] The Talmud reader is, out of necessity, either expected to operate while simultaneously positioned both inside and outside of the text being read or, at the very least, expected to oscillate between those two vantage points. The second example of the previous chapter (Niddah 64b), as well as the Ketubot 11a example I will treat in this chapter, complicate Iser's dichotomy by exploring the meaning-making process of that reader who while forced from a local context still operates within the confines of the Talmud. While the reader that Iser explores is one that reads a text from beginning to end, the Talmud reader never really has a starting, or end, point. The Talmud reader is caught up in an endless hermeneutic circle. Is such a reader to be viewed as always situated as interior to the Talmud or does such a reader's viewpoint vacillate between the observation of local passages while moving back and forth through the Talmud?

—רב גובריה of the sugya into question. It is only the idiomatic meaning of the phrase when translated as "expertise," as found elsewhere in tractate Niddah—that allows the linear logic of the text to cohere. However, the phrase's literal meaning, coupled with its sarcastic and censorious usage, in yet a third passage (Yevamot 104a), leaves the reader to wonder whether the Bavli, hypostatized as such, truly believes Shmuel's boast. The large") רב גובריה combination of the three factors—the literal meaning of the phrase רב גובריה manliness" or "great force") at Niddah 64b; the idiomatic use of the phrase at רב גובריה expertise") at Niddah 25b; and Shmuel's sarcastic usage of the phrase") Yevamot 104a—operates as a web of signs to convey an attitude of ambivalence toward Shmuel's alleged ability to have sex with a virgin many times while her hymen remained intact. In this way, just as was the case for the Baba Kamma 32b (hitting/tapping) texts, when viewed together, stand against both the logical רב גובריה passage, these three structure and rhetorical drive of the passage when viewed in isolation. In other words, the three passages simultaneously work together to both support and subvert Shmuel's outrageous assertion. The Stam of each independent sugya works locally to convey a particular meaning relevant to each local sugya. In this case, only one of the sugyot deals with virginity. Yet, the Superstam creates a web of ambivalent expression highlighting the anxiety surrounding the culturally dominant concept of female virginity and the problems raised by attempts to conceive of female virginity as a physically marked 183 state.182F A slowed-down, frame by frame, reflection on the Niddah 64b passage that asserts Shmuel's sexual prowess begins to help us understand how the GB reader—that reader trained by the expectations and assumptions of the text— is forced to navigate the meaning-making process. At the same time, this decelerated reading technique begins to help us understand how the Bavli thwarts the reader's attempt to make meaning in the text. As argued in the first chapter, any reader, by way of practicality, must start the meaning-making process at the level of language. The letters and words on the page appear one after the other in a linear fashion and an attempt must be made to digest them with a linear logic. However, the Bavli, when viewed as a whole, is not a linear book but rather a circular, or spherical, one. Therefore, the Bavli's implied reader (the Global Bavli reader described in the introduction, and defined throughout) is never starting; this reader is always in the middle, and confronts the words on the page with a preconceived idea of what is about to take place in the linear logic of the text about to be read. When there is a schism between the language on the page and the reader's logical expectations, the reader is forced off the page—either to a moment in the past of the text (as was the case in the Niddah 64b example) or to a moment in the future of the text (as the Ketubot

183 Many have seen Empson's work as anticipating post-structuralism and deconstruction. [See the essays collected in Christopher Norris and Nigel Mapp, eds., William Empson: The Critical Achievement (Cambridge University Press, 1993).] I thank Naomi Seidman for pointing out that Derrida uses the word "hymen" itself to describe what "is neither confusion nor distinction, neither identity nor difference, neither consummation nor virginity, neither the veil or the unveiling, neither the inside nor the outside, etc... Neither/nor, that is, simultaneously either/or..." see Jacques Derrida, Positions, trans. Alan Bass (University Of Chicago Press, 1981), 42-43 as quoted in Jacques Derrida, Dissemination, trans. Barbara Johnson (London: The Athlone Press, 1981), xvii.] 69

11a example treated in this chapter will show), a future that, paradoxically, as we will later see, has already happened. When the linear flow of the words on the page forces the reader to abandon lexical or etymological modes of finding meaning, the reader must resort to the realm of "pragmatics," which I define here as contextual usage,184 and "semiotics," which I define here to refer to how a word is generally used within the entire Bavli (and, to a lesser extent, those earlier works to which to the Bavli overtly refers).185 In such instances, the words on the page being read no longer convey their meaning literally, but rather convey their meaning through their contextual usage, not only on the page being read but also in other Bavli passages that appear both before and after that page. As was the case with the two examples of the previous chapter (Baba Kamma 32b and Niddah 64b), this chapter's Ketubot 11a example will also demonstrate how ambiguity works to express the ambivalent attitude that a Bavli passage has toward the logic of its own argument. Only, in this example, the very notion of one's ability to read the Bavli linearly is itself called into question. This, in turn, raises serious doubts concerning the project of freezing a particular Bavli passage in time and holding it down long enough to assess its "meaning." Individual Bavli passages are always both overtly and covertly pointing their readers away from the local context and directing them toward other Bavli passages, as if to tell the reader to find meaning elsewhere. The local meaning of any given Bavli passage can only be understood in the global context. This is due to the Bavli's use of key phrases and concepts, within its rhetorical arguments, which both directly and indirectly appeal to knowledge assumed to have been acquired prior to the reading of the local passage. This is the case even when that knowledge is only to be found in subsequent tractates of the Bavli.186 Ketubot 11a overtly frustrates the very concept of logical linearity by appealing, within the very linear flow of its argument, to another passage that has yet to be encountered by the linear reader of the Bavli. The referenced text only appears hundreds of pages, and a number of tractates, later in the Bavli. Yet, it is only through the

184 Generally, "pragmatics" is a term used to define a broader range of considerations than those to which I limit the use of the term in this chapter. When I use the term "pragmatics" in this chapter, I only refer to that aspect of pragmatics that deals with how ambiguity is resolved through appeal to the textual context in which an ambiguous word of phrase is used.

185 When I use the term semiotics in this chapter, I refer only to linguistic semiotics. Broadly defined, semiotics is the study of how signs operate to convey meaning within a culture. These signs may also be visual, auditory, tactile, and olfactory. [Umberto Eco argues for an extremely broad range of subjects to be included in the study of semiotics in Umberto Eco, A Theory of Semiotics (Indiana University Press, 1978).

186 The extent to which the Bavli refers to itself, both implicitly and explicitly, makes it an exemplary case of the "hermeneutic circle" explored most notably by Spinoza, Heidegger, and Gadamer. See chapter 7 of Benedictus de Spinoza, Theological-Political Treatise, trans. Samuel Shirley and Seymour Feldman (Hackett Publishing, 2001), 86-104.and Hans Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method, trans. Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall (Continuum International Publishing Group, 2004), 268-306. 70

referenced passage of the later tractate,187 found at Gittin 13a, that the reader understands an ambiguous phrase's meaning within the Ketubot 11a passage being read. This ambiguous phrase, markedly truncated at Ketubot 11a to literally imply the opposite of what it actually means to express, once again serves to call into question the Bavli's conviction toward the logic, and therefore message, of its own local arguments.

Terminology

My analysis of Ketubot 11a will build upon the two examples of the previous chapter in explaining both how ambiguity in the Bavli acts as an expression of cultural ambivalence and how the GB reader is impacted by the process of trying to resolve ambiguity. While the Ketubot 11a example is far more complex than the previous two examples, it serves to demonstrate a similar effect. However, due to its complexity, an analysis of Ketubot 11a requires further theorization and the introduction of some new terminology. In analyzing Ketubot 11a, I will focus on the interplay among: the linguistic modes in which the Bavli expresses its ideas; the logic of the text as it unfolds; and the synchronic-philological and semiotic considerations that the reader must negotiate. In particular, I wish to explore those moments in time when a reader moves between a hyper-local 'lexio-semantic' (dictionary-based) mode of finding meaning, a local pragmatic (context-driven) mode of finding meaning, and a global 'semiotic' understanding of the use of terminology within the larger Talmudic linguistic network. By 'lexio-semantic' mode, I mean the process of understanding what a word means when found in a lexicon, when the reader understands a word via its derivation. This mode, itself, is informed by a kind of semiotic understanding of the ways that both word roots and the exact forms of those roots (when conjugated or declined in a particular way) are used throughout the literary canon. The problems raised by the circularity of this process will later be addressed. By 'pragmatic' mode, I mean the process of understanding what a word means through its contextual usage within a particular Bavli passage. By 'semiotic' mode, I mean how a reader understands a word's meaning when viewed as part of the larger Talmudic sign system—the Bavli as a comprehensive, synchronic, and self-referencing body of literature. It is my argument that a key feature of the Bavli's poetics is to be found in the ambivalence expressed, for the reader, at the nexus of the 'lexio-semantic,' 'pragmatic,' and 'semitotic' understanding of the Bavli's words— those moments when the reader corrects an initial dictionary- based ('lexio-semantic') misunderstanding of the meaning of a word by appealing either

187 Of course, for the GB reader, there is no concept of "earlier" and "later." I only use these terms to highlight (throughout the chapter) the incompatibility of these terms when applied to the GB reader. However, It is only through a linear presentation of what might take place in time that I can present a conception of how the GB reader might perceive the texts once they are read simultaneously. 71

to its local contextual usage ('pragmatics') or to its usage in the Bavli as a whole ('semiotics'). By virtue of the extreme self-referentiality of the Bavli's rhetorical presentation, the Bavli's implied reader—the GB reader—is encouraged to approach ambiguity in an intra-textual and synchronic manner rather than through an extra-textual and diachronic process. This reader, upon encountering linguistic ambiguity, incorporates aspects of 'lexio-semantics,' 'pragmatics,' and 'semiotics,' and then weighs and balances the various factors contributed by those three approaches to semantic understanding. However, all of these stages act as feedback mechanisms for each other. There is therefore a fine line between the reader's initial confrontation with an ambiguous term, which itself is informed by a kind of semiotic approach— what a word's root means when used throughout the Bavli (and to a lesser extent the works to which the Bavli explicitly refers)188

One can hypothesize that the extent to which the feedback mechanism is transparent varies according to the rareness of a particular word root or form throughout the canon. The distinction between two possible moments in which a reader processes an ambiguous term or phrase is more visible when the word is rare or part of a phrase that is rare. In such an instance, the semiotic factors played out on the road to meaning can at least be laid bare and assessed. An analysis of the reader's confrontation with the 189 -188F based on an outward progression from lexio,עבדא בהפקירא ambiguous phrase semantic to pragmatic to semiotic understanding, is somewhat contrived. Every initial phase in the process is equally informed by a phase that has yet to occur. The point of such an exercise is therefore to highlight the problematics of understanding what a particular Talmudic passage 'means' when read linearly. Any attempt to read a Bavli passage linearly will itself demonstrate how the Bavli subverts that process. However, an attempt to linearly understand how a Bavli passage means will reveal an important aspect of the Bavli's poetics, an aspect that I began to explain in the two examples presented in the previous chapter (Baba Kama 32b and Niddah 64b).

188 See Avodah Zarah 4a for the Bavli's conception of the differences between the Babylonian rabbis's lack of Biblical fluency when compared to their Palestinian counterparts. The Bavli there ascribes the difference between the two groups of rabbis vis-à-vis attention to the biblical text as stemming from a lack of Christian adversaries in Babylonia. Too much should not be made of this passage, yet it raises the question as to how seriously Babylonian Rabbis studies the Bible itself when compared to what we call What is) מאי בבל א"ר יוחנן בלולה במקרא בלולה במשנה בלולה בתלמוד :Bavli. Bavli is defined at Sanhedrin 24a Bavel? Mixed with Bible, mixed with Mishnah, [and mixed with Talmud.) Here the Bavli plays on the root to mix) in defining itself. Though this remark can be seen contextually as self-depreciative (among) בלל other reasons, the two comments in the Sanhedrin text are put in the mouth of Palestinian Rabbis), the Tosafists (Rabbeinu Tam, in particular, ad. loc.) see, in this comment, a loophole for avoiding the rabbinic requirement to spend a third one's time engaged in Bible study (see Kiddushin 30a). For the Tosafists, near exclusive study of Bavli suffices.

189 Possible translations of this phrase will be discussed at length. 72

To understand the effect of the ambivalence expressed at the nexus of the 'lexio- semantic,' 'pragmatic,' and 'semitotic' understanding of the Bavli's words, I will explore 190 189F in the עבדא בהפקירא the GB reader's attempt to resolve the ambiguity of the phrase continuation of the Ketubot 11a passage, presented below. When the GB reader this reader knows that this word root is common ,פקר approaches a word whose root is throughout the Bavli and can be interpreted in a number of ways. The fact that the word, mitigates the reader's choice (עבדא) in this context, is associated with the word for slave In this instance, the reader is encouraged to initially .פקר as to how to understand the root misunderstand the word in a manner that is quite opposite from the reader's later correction of that initial misreading. The later correction of the initial misreading is .(in another Bavli passage (Gittin 13a עבדא בהפקירא encouraged by the use of the phrase עבדא בהפקירא appears as part of the larger phrase עבדא בהפקירא In that passage, the phrase .(the translation of this phrase will be addressed later) ניחא ליה זילא ליה שכיחא ליה פריצא ליה While the longer phrase found at Gittin 13a is contextually unambiguous, the truncated phrase found at Ketubot 11a is misleading at the semantic level. It is only the appearance of the phrase in its entirety at Gittin 13a that leads to the correction of the initial 'lexio- semantic' misreading of the phrase at Ketubot 11a. I will first explore the reader's inchoate misunderstanding of the phrase based on word derivation and only later return to the semiotically derived correction of that misunderstanding. Finally, I will assess the impact that the contrast between those two reading phases has on the reader who stands outside of, or beyond, the linear reading experience. The purpose of this chapter, accordingly, is twofold. First, it is an attempt to understand the complexity of the notion of linearity and temporality as it relates to the reader's attempt to find meaning in the Bavli. Second, it is an effort to recognize the subversive effect that the Bavli's use of ambiguous terminology has on its reader—how the Bavli, for the reader moving between the three meaning-finding modes detailed above, questions and undercuts those conclusions at which the Bavli logically or rhetorically seems to drive by employing the literary mechanism of polysemous or ambiguous words and phrases. Later chapters will demonstrate how the same subversive phenomenon permeates the Bavli, at the level of language, through words and phrases that are not necessarily markedly ambiguous or polysemous.

Ambiguity in Ketubot 11a

191 The Bavli at Ketubot 11a discusses the laws of a minor190F converting to Judaism. The passage begins with:

190 Possible translations of this phrase will be discussed at length.

191 For a male, under the age of thirteen; for a female, under the age of twelve. 73

192 at [(מקוה) Rav Huna said that Rav said: We immerse191F a minor convert [in the ritual bath .(על דעת בית דין) the direction of the court

Before exploring the text of the Bavli, it is necessary to provide some background information. The medieval commentators differ as to how to conceive of the case of the conversion of a minor. The spectrum of interpretation ranges from: minors converting on their own; to a mother who converts her child after the father had died; or to children whose parents are alive but did not convert their children with them at the time of their 193 own conversion.192F What is at stake, for the medieval commentators, is the notion of degree of knowledge necessary for legal consent) as it exists for a minor, as well) "דעת" as the logical coherence of this particular Bavli passage when viewed in light of other such passages that discuss parents converting both with and without their minor children. as it appears in this passage, can either be translated as ,על דעת בית דין The Hebrew term "at the direction of the court" or "with consent of the court". Although one might choose to translate this expression idiomatically, as "at the direction of the court," such a degree of knowledge) "דעת" translation must also consider the weight of the term necessary for legal consent) that is the primary concern in those cases dealing with the efficacy of the legal actions of a minor. The term here therefore connotes, in some way, 194 consent) that the minor lacks. 193F) דעת that the court supplies the

Ketubot 11a: What Does it Mean to be in a State of Ownerlessness?

The following explication of the sugya at Ketubot 11a will follow the reader through the meaning-making process. This method will serve to display the complex relationship that the GB reader has with time and meaning as a time-bound event. The first step will be to consider the interplay between the language that the text uses with that of the logic that the text assumes. In order to accomplish this task, it is necessary to slow down the reading process and lead the reader through the various considerations and choices that this reader must make along the road to meaning. I base my claims about the

192 Ritual immersion is a requirement for conversion. Circumcision is an additional requirement for male converts. The conversion process is discussed at length in the Talmud in the fourth chapter of Yevamot, especially 47a-b.

193 See, for example, Rashi, Ritva, Rashba, and novellae of Rabbi Aharon Ha-Levi of Barcelona 1235- 1290. For a critical analysis of the evolution of the rabbinic conceptualization of the role of the court in the conversion process, as well as the laws of a minor convert, from the Tannaitic period and onwards see Joshua Kulp, “The Participation of a Court in the Jewish Conversion Process,” The Jewish Quarterly Review 94, no. 3, New Series (Summer 2004): 437-470. I thank Barry Wimpfheimer for drawing my attention to this article. For critical analysis of this passage see Joshua Kulp, Mahadurah ʻim perush ha- sugyot le-pereḳ Betulah niśet (Universitat Bar-Ilan, 2002).

194 In this regard, see Kulp, “The Participation of a Court in the Jewish Conversion Process.” pp. 465-466. 74

poetics of the Bavli on a single moment in this process—a moment that occurs before actual resolution is achieved. The second step will be to move outside of the linear flow of the argument of the local passage and view the Ketubot text in light of the global Talmudic context to which it directly and overtly calls. In this case, it is another Bavli passage located at Gittin 13a. The third step will be to look at the poetic effect of the contrast between the reader's initial 'lexio-semantic' encounter with the local phrase (at Ketubot 11a), based on the derivation of the words in the phrase, and the reader's later 'pragmatic' and 'semiotic' corrections of the initial misreading of the phrase, based on the בהפקירא ,Bavli's use of the phrase in another context (Gittin 13a). The phrase in question appears twice at Ketubot 11a. Lexio-semantically, the phrase appears to mean ,ניחא ליה "it is good for him to be in a state of ownerlessness." All occurrences of the (masculine) ,in the Bavli, except for the one example discussed below "הפק[י]רא" abstract noun 195 translate as "state of ownerlessness."194F Both occurrences of the phrase at Ketubot 11a, the translation of these) דעבד ודאי בהפקירא ניחא ליה and עובד כוכבים בהפקירא ניחא ליה ambiguous phrases will be discussed at length), appear in truncated form when compared does not mean "state of ownerlessness." It is only הפקירא to the exceptional case where the abridgement of the phrase at Ketubot 11a that makes it ambiguous. The expanded the) עבדא בהפקירא ניחא ליה זילא ליה שכיחא ליה פריצא ליה ,phrase found at Gittin 13a translation of this phrase will also be discussed at length), works to reveal the meaning of the ambiguous truncated phrase found at Ketubot 11a. However, I will argue that it is in the very contrast between the 'meaning' elicited in these two reading phases—one meaning elicited by a local reading and one meaning globally driven—that the Bavli expresses its ambivalence toward its own local logical or rhetorical arguments.

Ketubot 11a proceeds as follows: Rav Huna said that Rav said: We immerse a minor convert .(על דעת בית דין) at the direction of the court What does this come to teach us?

But according to" - אלא למאן דאמר תמרי דזיקא ודאן חייב הפקרא נינהו הכא במאי עסקינן שעשאן גורן) Berakhot 40b 195 the one who says that they are dates blown down by the wind, why would tithing be necessary in a case of certainty [i.e. where they certainly were not tithed before]? They are in a state of ownerlessness! We are חשבון מאי עבידתיה ) dealing here with a case where he made a collection [i.e. a pile] of them."); Shabbat 120a Why would he have to make a reckoning? They are in a state of ownerlessness!"); Yoma" - מהפקירא קזכו And according to the one who says that 'real fish' were" - להו מהפקרא ולמאן דאמר דגים מאי חנם דהוו מייתין ) 75a meant, what does 'for nothing' mean? That they were brought to them in [it. from] a state of ownerlessness One holds that" - מר סבר בירא דהפקירא הוא ומר סבר בירא דשותפי הוא) i.e. no one owned the fish].); Beitza 39a] מאי שנא דאוכל מן ) the well is ownerless and one holds that the well is owned in partnership." ); Nedarim 42b Why is it different if he eats the overhanging [fruit]? Is it" - הנוטות דפירי דהפקירא אינון ארעא נמי אפקרה I" - אנא מהפקירא קא זכינא) because they are ownerless? But the land is also ownerless!"); Baba Kama 115b - סילקא וירקא ביובל הפקירא הוא) acquire ownership from [its] state of ownerlessness."); Baba Metzia 109a לית כל מילי דצייר וחתים וכייל ומני ) during the Jubilee year, vegetables and beets are ownerless."); Ḥullin 105b" ,We have no permission to take anything that is wrapped up" - לן רשותא למשקל מיניה עד דמשכחינן מידי דהפקרא sealed, measured, or counted, but [we may] only [take something] if we find it in a state of ownerlessness.") 75

That it is a benefit for him. And we may act to the advantage of a person who is not present; but we cannot act to the detriment of a person who is not present.196 [But] we already learnt this: "And we may act to the advantage of a person who is not present; but we cannot act to the detriment of a person who is not present"!197

The reader encounters the first four stages of this passage in a straightforward manner:198 what "new" principle—aside from the fact that one may act to someone's advantage, but not detriment, outside of their presence—did Rav Huna mean to teach with his statement about a minor convert? The following 2 stages of the sugya’s dialectics, (stages 5 and 6,) however, contain a certain level of linguistic ambiguity. At the same time, they overtly direct the reader to another Bavli passage. The interplay between these—and two the Bavlisubsequent passages, correction as well of as that the linguisticinitial misunderstanding peculiarity of a throug particularh an appealmode of to expression, the term's use leads in otherthe reader Bavli to passages. question the very conclusion that is assumed. As was the case with the Niddah 64b example of the previous chapter, I will first translate an obscure idiom found at Ketubot 11a lexio-semantically—literally, or based on its word root derivation.

עבדא " The Reader's Synchronic Philological Encounter with the Phrase "בהפקירא

has one of two basic meanings. The פקר Throughout the Bavli, the verbal root first is to declare ownerless or renounce ownership; the second is to be irreverent or act 199 if one declares his slave free, he) המפקיר עבדו יצא לחירות promiscuously.198F The phrase

196 For the possibility of reading this statement (stage 3) as two distinct clauses see Shitah Mekubetzet (of Bezalel Ashkenazi, a 16th century Talmudist) to Ketubot 11a.

197 This principle is already attested to in the Mishnah (Eruvin 7:11 and Gittin 1:6). The assumption being, Rav Huna, an Amora, would have no need to reiterate a principle already stated in the earlier canonical Tannaitic work, the Mishnah.

198 The reader may choose to inflect stage 3 in an alternate manner, as a question. [see Ritva, also see Shitah Mekubetzet who discusses Ritva's reading.] In other words, the reader may choose to read this part of the text as saying "Is Rav Huna trying to teach the law of...? That would not make sense because we already know that law!" Regardless, the meaning and function of stages 3 and 4 remain the same. In either case, whether stage 3 is read as an answer or as part of stage 4's question, the reader is still left wondering what novel idea Rav Huna was trying to teach by making his statement.

199 Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002). Jastrow adds "to break into, trespass" and 76

200 201 goes out to freedom)199F is a legal principle that is unanimous throughout the Bavli.200F In fact, aside from the two Bavli passages presented throughout the remainder of this slave) in the entire) עבד never appears adjacent to the word פקר chapter, the verbal root if one declares his slave free, he) המפקיר עבדו יצא לחירות Bavli except for in the phrase goes out to freedom). Therefore, when the GB reader approaches this word combination in the continuation of the Ketubot passage the image of 'freedom' evoked (פקר and עבד) is at the foreground. Additionally, in the two texts that I will address in פקר by the root is expressed in the form of a פקר this section (Ketubot 11a and Gittin 13a), the root is found at ten different פקר This form of the root ".הפק[י]רא" ,masculine) abstract noun) 202 locations in the Bavli.201F I will later explore the word's meaning in two of those הפק[י]רא instances. However, in each of the other eight Bavli passages in which the word 203 appears, it means "state of ownerlessness."202F For a slave, "state of ownerlessness" would translate to "free" or "manumitted"; if a slave has no owner then he is free, המפקיר עבדו יצא לחירות especially according to the aforementioned Talmudic principle of (if one declares his slave free, he goes out to freedom). Finally, in the Ketubot 11a passage that will be explicated presently, a comparison seems to be made between the "state of ownerlessness" of a non-Jew and the "state of ownerlessness" of a slave. One must assume, at first glance, that the non-Jew's "state of ownerlessness" must refer to a freedom from serving a master, God. One must therefore presume that the slave's "state of ownerlessness" also refers to his freedom from serving a master, his slave-owner. If, that was intended—either "to פקר however, it was the second definition of the verbal root be irreverent" or "to act promiscuously"—then, in the instance of the non-Jew, one must would seem to carry more the connotation of פקר also presume that the verbal root 204 irreverence with respect to God's commandments203F than sexual promiscuity. However, both the logic of the overall passage and the referenced source (Gittin בהפקירא ,13a) to which the passage overtly points preclude such an interpretation. In fact will eventually, once the initial misreading is corrected, be defined as "sexual freedom." What I wish to explore are the ramifications of this "first glance" reading—or

"to be skeptical." Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli, and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, vol. II, 2 vols. (Luzac, 1903). Ibid.

means: to declare free; to renounce פקר active causative construct) of the verbal root) הפעיל The 200 ownership; to declare a property ownerless. [Ibid.]

201 Yevamot 48a; Nazir 62b; Gittin 38a, 38b, 39a; Kiddushin 72b; Keritot 24b. Debates surrounding the principle only revolve around whether or not the slave additionally needs a manumission document in order to marry a Jewish woman.

202 Berakhot 40b; Shabbat 120a; Yoma 75a; Beitza 39a; Nedarim 42b; Baba Kama 115b; Baba Metzia 109a; Ḥullin 105b; and the two passages treated in this chapter, Ketubot 11a and Gittin 13a.

203 See footnote 195 for a detailed list of all of those occurrences and the actual meaning of the word in each Bavli context.

204 See the usage of this term at Sanhedrin 38b, 48a, 60a, 100a where the term is used to describe antinomian or heretical behavior. 77

as "state of ownerlessness" or "manumitted state" as it contrasts בהפקירא misreading—of has later בהפקירא ניחא ליה to the overall meaning of the passage, once the idiomatic phrase been corrected to translate as "sexual freedom"—how the Bavli's particular word choices or linguistic modes of expression work to undermine the logic that the linear flow of the Talmudic argument assumes; in other words, how the form of a Talmudic expression works to express an ambivalent attitude toward the Bavli's own rhetoric. To demonstrate my point, my translation of Ketubot 11a will initially reflect this "first glance" misreading.

Ketubot 11a: A 'First Glance' Misreading

To review, the first four stages of the Ketubot 11a passage consisted of a 205 statement by Rav Huna that minors are converted at the direction of the court.204F The Bavli then asks: what new principle does Rav Huna's statement teach us? It could not teach us that 'one may act to someone's advantage, but not detriment, outside of their presence' because that principle is already known from the Mishnah (at Eruvin 7:11 and 206 Gittin 1:6).205F Stage 5 unfolds as follows:

I would have thought that it is a benefit for a non-Jew to be 207 206F.(עובד כוכבים בהפקירא ניחא ליה) in a state of ownerlessness

Two factors operate simultaneously on the reader trying to find meaning at this point in the reading experience. First, the reader understands the logical function of stage 5 before digesting the actual words that play out that function. This is due to the repeated use of this rhetorical structure throughout the Bavli. The reader, upon encountering stage 5, knows that in an attempt to explain Rav Huna's need to state the obvious—why Rav Huna's seemingly obvious statement was actually not so obvious—the Bavli will supply the reader with the possible alternate thought process that Rav Huna's statement was ",to be in a state of ownerlessness" ,הפקירא meant to preempt. At the same time, the word causes pause. How does ownerlessness apply to a non-Jew? The following statement in

גר קטו ) "Rav Huna's actual statement was: "We immerse a minor convert at the direction of the court 205 This statement does not say that a court may convert a minor but rather that a .(מטבילין אותו על דעת בית דין court immerses a minor convert. The medieval commentators therefore debate the actual scenario to which Rav Huna's statement refers. Is it a case where a minor converts on their own, a case of a mother who converts her child after the father has died, or a case of a child whose parents are alive but did not convert their child with them at the time of their own conversion? (See footnote 193, above.)

206 See footnote 197.

in all of the manuscripts. The Vilna edition uses the virtual "גוי" ;Star worshipper" in the Vilna edition" 207 in most instances. This is done in order to afford "גוי" for (עובד כוכבים) "euphemism "Star worshipper protection from Christian censorship. 78

"ד" the Bavli, stage 6, sheds some light on this question. The reader encounters the prefix 208 ("d") in stage 6 and understands that what comes next is a support for stage 5.207F

As we have already established, it is certainly a benefit for a slave to be in a state of .(דעבד ודאי בהפקירא ניחא ליה) ownerlessness d") implies, then there") "ד" If stage 6 is cited as a proof for stage 5, as the prefix must be some logical comparison between the desire of a non-Jew to exist in a state of ownerlessness and the desire for a slave to exist in a state of ownerlessness. In fact, the original question of the Bavli, that Rav Huna's statement was obvious, itself arises out of the fact that it is a benefit for a slave to be free. The very principle of 'one may act to (זכין לאדם שלא בפניו) 'someone's advantage, but not detriment, outside of their presence appears in the Mishnah at Gittin 1:6 in the very context of freeing a slave. The Mishnah there states that if one sends a manumission document to his slave through an emissary and subsequently decides to retract the commission of that emissary, he is not allowed to do so. This is because the emissary has already acquired the document on behalf of the one may act to') זכין לאדם שלא בפניו ואין חבין לאדם שלא בפניו slave due to the principle of someone's advantage, but not detriment, outside of their presence'). The principle only works to effect the emissary's acquisition of the slave's behalf because of the understanding that it is a benefit for a slave to acquire his freedom. It follows, for the reader of stages 5 and 6 of Ketubot 11a, that the intuitive connection between the state of ownerlessness of a slave and that of a non-Jew is that they both want to be free from a master. In the case of the slave, the master would be the slave-owner; in the case of the non-Jew, the master would be God. It would be a benefit to be free from the highly regulated ritual and ethical life of a Jew, who is, in essence, a 209 slave to God.208F The analogy between the slave and the Jew, according to this reading, 210 would serve to explain why Rav Huna's statement was not so obvious.209F If it is not

208 The existence of witnesses to textual variants that alter the flow of question and answer in this passage, is evidence to the confusion that historical ,(דהא קיימא לן instead of והא קיימא לן) having stage 6 as a question readers experienced while trying to understand the function of this sentence. This confusion existed at a period in time (as late as the thirteenth century) when the text was still in a state of flux and the effect of readers writing meaning into the text had actual impact on various textual traditions. (See, for example, and Vatican 130 which does not mention the slave at all. Also see the"והא" Vatican 112 which has commentaries of Ritva and Rashba to Ketubot 11a which discuss the various textual variants. Also see Moshe Herschler, ed., Dikdukei ha-Soferim ha-Shalem: Masekhet Ketuvot, vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Yad HaRav Herzog, 1962).

slave of God) is used to describe Moses in the verse that was the subject of) עבד ה' The appellation 209 Chapter 1 of this dissertation. (Deuteronomy 34:5) Moses is repeatedly called by this appellation throughout the books of the Prophets and Writings. Joshua is also given this appellation. The conception .the same root as the word for slave) is ubiquitous throughout the Talmud) עבודה of worship of God as עובד strange worship; the Gentile in our Talmud passage is referred to as ,עבודה זרה Idolatry is referred to as .star worshipper ,כוכבים

210 There is another possible way of reading the Talmud's analogy between freeing a slave and conversion. When a slave is freed he is automatically converted to Judaism. Therefore the Talmud may more simply just be comparing two cases of conversion. The factor of slavery would, in that case, merely be a red 79

desirous for a non-Jew to become a Jew, then the court would presumably not be able to act on the minor non-Jew's behalf and therefore would not be able to affect his conversion to Judaism without his consent. Since a minor lacks the ability to consent, he can therefore not convert. Hence, Rav Huna's statement is necessary because it is quite unexpected and certainly not obvious. In fact, Rav Huna will now be required to justify his opinion and explain why the court may indeed convert a minor without his consent, against his will, and ultimately, to his detriment. The problem for the reader at this point is whether or not to move forward in the Ketubot 11a text. The GB reader already knows what is about to occur in the linear logic of the passage based on the passage's use of a familiar rhetorical structure common throughout the Bavli. This reader knows that the Bavli will explain why it is that the comparison between the freedom experienced by a slave and the freedom experienced by a non-Jew is not in fact comparable. Once that is explained, then Rav Huna's statement, which has already proven to be novel, will also be justified on legal grounds. If the reader does decide to move forward in the text then it will become clear that the reason why the two cases are not comparable has something to do with the fact that while the 211 non-Jew is a minor, the slave is an adult.210F The reader's other option is to, at this point, move off of this page in the Bavli and engage the Talmudic context that 'established' the fact (presented in stage 6) that 'it is certainly a benefit for a slave to be in a state of After all, stage 6 is introduced with the term .(דעבד ודאי בהפקירא ניחא ליה) 'ownerlessness .(as we have already established) דהא קיימא לן The principle appealed to in stages 3 and 4, that we may act to someone's advantage in absentia, is not an innovation, but a reference to a principle already

herring. However, when the Talmud discusses the benefits of freeing a slave at Gittin 11b-13a the pros and cons of being a Jew is not a factor considered in the discussion. Since my exploration of this Ketubot text will now turn to that passage in Gittin, I therefore choose to avoid unnecessarily complicating matters at this point in my analysis by treating this possibility. It should be pointed out that any reader who does chooses to take that fork in the analytical road will regardless inevitably end up turning to the Gittin passage. For the sake of brevity and in attempt to avoid further complicating an already complicated matter, I therefore skip that step in my analysis.

211 Ketubot 11a continues as follows:

[Rav Huna] comes to teach us that that only applies to a major who has already tasted what is forbidden. However, it is a benefit to a minor.

It is of note that Stages 7 and 8 address Rav Huna's statement but do not directly address the statement regarding a slave. In fact, it is even difficult to see them as addressing the statement about the slave degree of knowledge necessary for legal) דעת indirectly. The issue at stake in Rav Huna's statement is consent.) If it is sexual activity that is the object of the forbidden taste, then a "minor" would not be the category addressed but rather a boy who is nine years old. For in the Talmud, whereas the age of sexual activity for a male is nine years old, a "minor" is a boy below the age of 13. Stages 7 and 8 therefore to do not work to resolve the ambiguity and the reader must therefore look outside of the Ketubot 11a passage for guidance.

established. It is interesting to note that the reader trying to read this passage linearly has already been dragged out of that linearity by the passage's appeal to two facts established elsewhere in the Bavli. The first fact is 'that we may act to the advantage of a person who is not present; but we cannot act to the detriment of a person who is not present.' The linear reader of the Bavli has already encountered this principle in the Mishnah (both at Eruvin 7:11212 and Gittin 1:6). It is indeed a common assumption of the Bavli and is used in a number of disparate Bavli passages dealing with topics that are quite diverse.213 However, the principle put forward in stage 6 regarding the benefit of freedom for a slave has not yet been encountered by the linear reader of the Bavli. This principle is established only in a later tractate. The linear reader of this Bavli passage is dragged from the linearity of that experience in an attempt to find meaning in the text. This highlights the complexity of understanding the relationship between a linear and non- linear reading of the Bavli. In fact, it raises serious questions about the linearity of the reading experience in general.214

Gittin 13a: The Referenced Text

The referenced passage in tractate Gittin deals with a Baraita (located at Gittin 12b) that discusses whether or not it is a benefit for a slave to go free.215 The practical

212 Even that reader who does not separate the layers of Mishnah and Talmud, by first reading the Mishnah in its entirety before reading the Talmud to those Mishnayot, will still have already encountered this Mishnah as part of the Talmud because it appears in an earlier tractate. (The Talmud is made up of both the Mishnah and the Gemara. It is unclear to what extent the Mishnah was studied, historically, independent of the Gemara. On the one hand, many medieval manuscripts do not include the Mishnah in its entirety as part of the text, leaving one to assume that those who read these manuscripts were expected to already know the Mishnah by heart. On the other hand, many medieval Talmud manuscripts incorporate a version of the Mishnah that is different from the Mishnah contained in separate Mishnah manuscripts [e.g. MSS Parma, Kaufman, and Cambridge] of Palestinian origin. These medieval Talmud manuscripts contain a version of the Mishnah that is greatly affected by the Babylonian discussion of the Talmud. [See Hermann Leberecht Strack, Günter Stemberger, and Markus N. A. Bockmuehl, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (Fortress Press, 1996).])

213 Most occurrences of this phrase in the Talmud are in a context where the principle is taken for granted (e.g. Yevamot 118b; Kiddushin 23a; Baba Metzia 12a; and a number of the discussions that quote either the Mishnah in Gittin or Eruvin). Kiddushin 42a seeks a Biblical source for the principle.

214 See footnote 71 of Chapter 1 regarding the Nuerath boat analogy popularized by Quine in the field of philosophy of science.

215 For an analysis of this sugya in isolation that focuses on linear versus non-linear readings of the sugya in quite a different way than I treat the subject see Aryeh Cohen, Rereading Talmud: Gender, Law, and the Poetics of Sugyot (Scholars Press, 1998). pp.193-223. Cohen's reading strategy, which he call "Sugyaetics," proceeds in three stages. The first reads the sugya linearly; the second analyzes the non- linear structure of the sugya; and the third seeks out "narrative of the sugya's subtext." (ibid. p. 193) 81

difference revolves around a case where a master sent a manumission document to his slave via an agent. May the master retract and cancel the emissary's commission at some point before the document reaches the hand of the slave or not? Does the agent effect the manumission on behalf of the slave before actually delivering the document to the slave? Or, alternatively, does the manumission only take effect once the slave (or the slave's own agent) receives possession of the document? The Mishnah at Gittin 11b presents a debate between Rabbi Meir and the Sages regarding this case. Rabbi Meir says that the master may recant and the Sages say that he may not. Both parties to the debate agree to the principle that we may act to someone's advantage in absentia. What they disagree about is whether or not it is an advantage for a slave to acquire his freedom.216 The Bavli at Gittin 12b quotes a Baraita that appears to elaborate upon the dispute in the Mishnah.217 In this Baraita, Rabbi El'azar recounts a debate between himself, together with unnamed parties, and Rabbi Meir. The Baraita reads:

זכות Rabbi El'azar said: We said to Meir "But is it not a (advantage) for a slave to go free?" (disadvantage) חוב Meir] said to us: "[No, it is actually] a] priest) then he would be) כהן for if he was the slave of a priest's share of the) תרומה [disqualified from [eating crop)." We said to him: "But if [the slave's owner] wants to deny [the slave] food or sustenance [would he not be allowed]!"

Cohen's focus in this sugya is on the gendered representation of slaves as feminine. For an introduction to Cohen's "Sugyaetics" method, see ibid. pp. 131-150.

216 The Mishnah at Gittin 11b reads as follows:

writ of divorce) to my wife" or "Give this) גט If a man says [to an agent]: "Give this manumission document to my slave": If he wants to retract, he can do so in both cases, these are the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages said: [This is true] for writs of divorce, but not for manumission documents because we may act to the advantage of a person who is not present but we cannot act to the detriment of a person who is not present. For if he wanted to refrain from feeding his slave he would be permitted but he would not be permitted to refrain from feeding his wife. [Rabbi Meir] said to them: But he can .priest's share of the crop) just as he can his wife) תרומה disqualify his slave from eating [The Sages] said to him: Because [the slave] is his property.

217 The Baraita is a quote from the Tosefta (Gittin 1:10). The Talmud perceives this Baraita to be an explanation of the somewhat cryptic Mishnah found at Gittin 11b. In other words, the Baraita is a more comprehensive presentation of the dialogue which took place in the Mishnah. [While the Tosefta has traditionally been viewed as an explanation of the Mishnah, and it certainly is seen by the Talmud to be so in this instance, recent scholarship has brought to light a number of problems with that assumption as well as alternative conceptions. See, for example, Shamma Friedman, Tosefta ʻatiḳta: Masekhet Pesaḥ Rishon: Maḳbilot Ha-Mishnah Ṿeha-Tosefta Pirshon, Be-Tseruf Mavo Kelali (Ramat-Gan: Universiṭat Bar-Ilan, 2002). Judith Hauptman, "Mishnah As a Response to "Tosefta"" in Shaye J. D Cohen, ed., The Synoptic Problem in rabbinic Literature (Providence, RI: Brown Judaic Studies, 2000).]

[Meir] said to us: "Whereas the slave of a priest who runs 218 priest's share of the crop) [the) תרומה away...217F [still] eats ".(priest's share of the crop) תרומה freed slave] does not eat

Rabbi Meir believes it is a disadvantage for a slave to acquire his freedom and Rabbi El'azar, as mouthpiece for the Sages, believes it to be an advantage. The Bavli explains the exchange between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi El'azar as follows. In statement B, Rabbi Meir introduced the fact that the slave of a priest is at a disadvantage when freed the priest's share of the crop). Rabbi El'azar, in) תרומה because he can no longer eat statement C, argues that a master is under no obligation to feed a slave in the first place and it therefore cannot be considered a disadvantage to be free. Rabbi Meir then retorts, in D, that the level of advantage to the master is not what is at issue here. For Rabbi Meir, we must view advantage and disadvantage solely from the perspective of the slave. Even though the master is under no obligation to feed the slave, the slave is still at an the priest's share of the crop) that he) תרומה advantage while enslaved because he may eat 219 procures on his own.218F The Bavli at Gittin 13a questions Rabbi Meir's opinion—that a slave-owner may cancel the emissary's commission to free his slave because it is a disadvantage for a slave priest), a small) כהן to go free—on the basis that it only seems to apply to the slave of a percentage of the population. According to Rabbi Meir, it would only seem to be a disadvantage for a priest's slave to go free. Why would it be a disadvantage for the slave non-priest) to acquire his freedom? The Bavli theorizes another angle as to) ישראל of a why it would even be a disadvantage for the slave of a non-priest to go free. The Bavli's approach at this point in the discussion is to contrast the slave's current and future sexual and marital prospects. Rabbi Shmuel the son of Rav Yitzhak begins the discussion, in defense of Rabbi Meir, by explaining why it is even a disadvantage for the slave of a .non-priest) to acquire his freedom) ישראל

218 The Baraita here includes a wife who rebels against her husband (i.e. denies her husband sexual intercourse) in this statement. The Baraita then closes with the rabbis conceding to Rabbi Meir:

[Rabbi El'azar recounts the rabbis' retort]: Rather it is a disadvantage for a woman [to priest's share of the) תרומה receive a writ of divorce] because it disqualifies her from crop) and causes her to lose her food allowance.

The Talmud explains the vague exchange at the conclusion of the Baraita by reading it in conjunction with the vague exchange in the Mishnah (see footnote 217). The details of the Talmud's reconstructed exchange between Rabbi Meir and the Sages in both the Baraita and Mishnah are not important for our analysis.

priest's share of the crop) is cheap owing to excess supply and limited demand. It is also easy to) תרומה 219 procure as it can be collected on the threshing floor. (See Tosafot)

Rabbi Shmuel the son of Rav Yitzhak said: Because it causes [the slave] to lose [access to] a non-Jewish slavewoman. Just the opposite! [Freedom is a benefit to him because] it permits him to a free woman!

(עבדא בהפקירא ניחא ) A slave prefers sexualU promiscuity U 220 a non-Jewish slavewoman] is lascivious with him,219F] —ליה 221 she is readily available to him, [and]220F she is licentious .(זילא ליה שכיחא ליה פריצא ליה) with him

Stage i argues, for Rabbi Meir, that it is a disadvantage for a slave to go free because as a freedman he can no longer marry a slavewoman. Stage ii counters that a freedman is actually in a far better position because he would be permitted to marry a free woman. This would certainly give the slave more sexual or marital options. Additionally, the women with whom the slave would now be permitted to engage in sexual or marital relations would be of a higher social class. The argument of Stage ii is therefore one of both quantity and quality. This argument presents a problem according to Rabbi Meir's opinion that it is a disadvantage for a slave to go free. Stage iii answers for Rabbi Meir and explains that a slave would rather have sexual access to a slavewoman because of the quality of that sexual experience. The slave would be willing to forgo access to a larger number of women who also belong to a higher social class, not to mention his freedom, because of the type of sex that he can have with a slavewoman.

which means to ,זלל is the passive participle of the verb זילא Or "she is debased to him." The word 220 debase, become cheap, or disgrace. In Syriac, this verbal root carries the additional meanings of: to be lascivious, to make dirty, to lead into vice, to despise, to stagger, to become vile, and to act shamelessly. For the Syriac �ܝܠܙ as "female whore" see Carl Brockelmann, Lexicon Syriacum, Ed. 2, aucta et emendata. (Halis Saxonum: Sumptibus M.Niemeyer, 1928). p. 197, as cited in Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods. Benjamin Mussafia (c. 1606-1675, born in Spain, died in Amsetrdam), in his work Musaf he-'Arukh (additions to Nathan the son of Yeḥiel's [c. 1035- 1106, Italy] Talmudic lexicon, Arukh), points out that the Aramaic Targum translates the Biblical Nathan ben Jehiel and] .זלל Job 40:4.) with the Aramaic root) קלותי Proverbs 12:9) and) נקלה words Benjamin ben Immanuel Mussafia, He-’Arukh u-Musaf he-’Arukh, vol. 2, 3 vols. (Bnei Brak: Pardes, Job 40:4) in those) קלל Proverbs 12:9), and) קלל a form of ,קלון Brown-Driver-Briggs translates .(1992 instances as, respectively, "dishonor" and "to be slight." [Bruce Einspahr, Index to Brown, Driver & Briggs Hebrew lexicon (Moody Press, 1976).Other translations for this word root, given by Brown-Driver-Briggs, that could be relevant here are: "be easy;" "despise;" "of little account;" lightly esteemed;" "contemptible;" "worthless;" "frivolity;" and "burnished" (from "light, quick movement of rubbing").

221 The word "and" appears in all MSS except Vatican 130 but not in the Vilna or Venice prints. Vatican to him) at the end of the phrase. Therefore, Vatican 130 has the final three) ליה also omits the word 130 which leads to a different translation of the sentence. Instead of the ,שכיחא ליה פריצא words of the phrase as Talmud listing three reasons why the slave wants to remain a slave it only lists two. The translation of the last part of the sentence according to Vatican 130 would then be: "she is lascivious with him; licentiousness is readily available to him."

The Bavli does not go into detail about the nature of that type of sexual encounter but cryptically lists three reasons why a slave would sexually prefer a slavewoman to a free and ,(שכיחא) readily available ,(זילא) woman. A slavewoman is vulgar or wanton .(פריצא) licentious עבדא בהפקירא ניחא ליה זילא To review, in the Gittin passage, the longer expression A slave prefers sexual promiscuity; [a non-Jewish slavewoman] is) ליה שכיחא ליה פריצא ליה lascivious with him, she is readily available to him, and she is licentious with him) was used to explain the fact that it is a disadvantage for a slave to acquire his freedom. As a slave, he has ready access to a certain kind of sexual activity. The basis for this argument lies in the rabbinic conception of either the sexual tendencies of slavewomen or the 222 perception of those slavewomen by the slave.221F Lines i and ii of Gittin 13a juxtapose the respective benefits of one's sexual access to either a slavewoman or a free woman as they relate to the question of the beneficial nature of freedom. Presumably, it is sexual access though marriage that is implied in this initial comparison. Line iii introduces the notions of type and frequency of sexual activity in order to trump the concerns of number and status—how many women are available and what social caste those women belong to. 223 Whereas a freedman has theoretical access to many women,222F a slave, though having access to fewer women, has realistic access to a more appealing woman, where part of in which she is available to him (שכיחא ליה) the appeal of this woman is the frequency sexually; and this, despite her low social status. The slave prefers access to this kind of woman against all other considerations, even his own freedom. It is therefore a as ,עבדא בהפקירא ניחא ליה disadvantage for him to be free. In any event, the expression defined at Gittin 13a, is a principle that is about sex and the slavewoman. Before returning to examine the impact of Gittin 13a on the reader of Ketubot 11a, it is important to keep in mind how the Bavli, in the Gittin sugya, reached the conclusion that had been presented at Ketubot 11a as an "established fact." The Bavli reached this conclusion only after analyzing each question and answer in the dialogue 224 between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi El'azar.223F This analysis integrated their respective arguments with textual evidence augmented from the Mishnah (at Gittin 11b that the 225 Baraita seeks to explain.) 224F However, the Bavli, at the conclusion of its investigation into the meaning of each phase of the dialogue in the Baraita, manufactures an argument for Rabbi Meir's opinion. This argument, that it is a benefit for a slave to remain

222 This depends on whether "advantage" is viewed as an objective judgment regarding the slave's situation or contingent upon the slave's perception of his situation.

223 According to Mishnah Kiddushin 4:1, a freedman is permitted to marry within 9 of the 10 social castes. A freedman is only precluded from marrying a priestess.

224 I omitted this portion of the text (Gittin 12b-13a) for the sake of brevity.

225 This is according to the Talmud's conception of the role of this Baraita. The Baraita is also found in the Tosefta at Gittin 1:10. See footnote 217.

enslaved so that he can have easy access to sexually promiscuous women, has no textual basis in either the Baraita or the Mishnah. Additionally, Rabbi Meir would be considered a minority opinion vis-à-vis the Sages (whose arguments are recounted by Rabbi El'azar in the Baraita). Therefore, Ketubot 11a's presentation of the Bavli's explanation of Rabbi Meir's opinion —that a slave does not desire to be free merely so that he can engage in a certain type of sexual activity—as an "established" fact is actually a bit of rhetorical flourish. In fact, the medieval commentators grapple with this issue and wonder whether or not the Bavli's conclusion at Gittin 13a indeed establishes this fact, especially according to the Sages who disagree with Rabbi Meir.226

Returning to Ketubot 11a: The Effect of Correcting the "First Glance" Misreading

at the conclusion of the עבדא בהפקירא ניחא ליה How does the use of the phrase Gittin passage impact the reader of Ketubot 11a? And how does the difference between the actual words employed in the phrase, in each instance, influence the reader? In other words, what effect is elicited and highlighted by the contrast between the wording of the of Gittin 13a "עבדא בהפקירא ניחא ליה זילא ליה שכיחא ליה פריצא ליה" two phrases, the longer ?of Ketubot 11a "עבדא בהפקירא ניחא ליה" and the shorter To review, the first four stages of the Bavli at Ketubot 11a had developed as 227 follows: 1) Rav Huna made a statement implying that the court may convert a minor;226F 2) The Bavli asked what novel idea Rav Huna was trying to teach; 3) The Bavli answered that Rav Huna is teaching the principle that we may act to the advantage, but not to the detriment, of a person who is not present; 4) The Bavli objects to the fact that Rav Huna's statement was intended for the purpose of teaching this principle because this principle is already explicitly stated in the Mishnah (Eruvin 7:11 and Gittin 1:6). The Bavli's assumption is that Rav Huna, an Amora, would not make a statement that merely reiterates a statement made by a Tanna. If Rav Huna made a statement then it would have to serve the purpose of introducing a novel idea. Stages 5 and 6 of Ketubot 11a serve to explain why Rav Huna's statement was necessary. Stages 5 and 6 perform this function by introducing a hypothetical thought that the reader might have presumed were it not for Rav Huna's statement. However, The reader's .עבדא בהפקירא ניחא ליה stage 6 contains a linguistic ambiguity, the phrase lexio-semantic encounter with this phrase, an encounter informed by the dictionary as "state of הפקירא meaning of the words, encourages the reader to translate

ד"ה: ] Also see Tosafot to Gittin 5b .[ד"ה: עבדא בהפקירא ניחא ליה] For example, see Tosafot to Gittin 13a 226 .for a similar instance [והא קיימא לן

227 See footnote 205.

ownerlessness." This lexio-semantic encounter is further informed by the association of as referring to "freedom" due (הפקר) "and "state of ownerlessness (עבד) "the words "slave if one declares his slave free, he goes) המפקיר עבדו יצא לחירות to the Talmudic principle of פקר and עבד the word roots ,עבדא בהפקירא ניחא ליה out to freedom). Outside of the phrase never appear as part of one phrase throughout the entire Babylonian Talmud. Accordingly, at the lexio-semantic phase of reading, the reader is encouraged to translate ,as "freedom is a benefit to a slave." Stages 5 and 6 would עבדא בהפקירא ניחא ליה accordingly be translated as:

I would have thought that a state of ownerlessness (read: עובד כוכבים בהפקירא ניחא ) freedom) is a benefit to a non-Jew ,(ליה As we have established that a state of ownerlessness (read: עבדא בהפקירא ניחא ) .freedom) is certainly a benefit to a slave (ליה

The correction of this misreading occurs as follows. The reader of stage 5 surmises that the "freedom" a non-Jew prefers has something to do with the strictures of Judaism and the rules required for the worship of its God. This would probably sit well with the reader as something that one might think. The reader might next expect to be told why this thought is wrong, or perhaps a different reason for Rav Huna's ruling will 228 be introduced.227F However, the reader is instead offered further support as to why they might think that one would prefer the freedom of not being Jewish. This further support defined at Gittin ,עבדא בהפקירא ניחא ליה :is offered from an established fact about slaves 229 13a to mean that a slave wants sexual freedom more than he wants physical freedom.228F However, the Ketubot passage masks that connotation by quoting only half of the phrase. Whereas in the Gittin passage the sentiment that a slave would prefer to remain a slave is the Ketubot ",עבדא בהפקירא ניחא ליה זילא ליה שכיחא ליה פריצא ליה " expressed by the phrase What effect is ". עבדא בהפקירא ניחא ליה" :passage merely quotes half of that phrase accomplished by the Bavli's quotation of only part of this line in the Ketubot passage?

228 An appeal to slavery seems completely unnecessary at this point in the text. In fact, the Vatican 130 manuscript completely avoids mentioning slavery.

229 Once the association between slavery and sexual promiscuity is made, the reader might be reminded that ,does appear in the general context of two discussions of a half-slavewoman/half-freewoman פקר the root (Yevamot 66a and Gittin 38b), though not as part of a phrase. Additionally, the 'woman is referred to as In these .עבד and פקר so there is no linguistic association between the word roots ,חציה שפחה וחצי בת חורין instances, the Talmud is concerned about a woman who is half slave and half free being sexually abused .(מנהג הפקר מהגו בה)

Reading Both Passages Simultaneously: A Global Reading

"בהפקירא" In the Gittin passage, the meaning of the otherwise ambiguous term obviously means "sexual promiscuity" because the sentence ends with "she is lascivious זילא ליה שכיחא ליה ) "with him, she is readily available to him, she is licentious with him In the Ketubot passage, however, the reader is confronted with a phrase that .(פריצא ליה literally means the opposite of what it actually seeks to express. In other words, the which seems to translate as "it is good for a slave ,עבדא בהפקירא ניחא ליה truncated phrase to be in a state of ownerlessness" (i.e. a slave wants his freedom) is used to express the

idea that a slave does notU wantU his freedom. This truncated phrase has been presented as an established fact, a fact that, for the linear reader of the Bavli, has not yet been 230 established.229F Additionally, as mentioned earlier, the Gittin passage does not itself really seem to establish the fact. This "established fact" was, in Gittin, only offered as hypothetical solution to a problem that Rabbi Meir faced in a debate with the Sages. All other proposals for the rationale behind Rabbi Meir's position in the Baraita at Gittin 12b had been woven into the textual fabric of the Baraita itself. In other words, the Baraita presented a cryptic dialogue between Rabbi Meir and the Sages. The Bavli then sought to understand the meaning of the words of that dialogue in a manner that made sense based on the possible theoretical positions that Rabbi Meir and the Sages could have held, positions in line with those put forth in the original debate presented in the Mishnah מאי קאמרי ליה " at Gittin 11b. After presenting the Baraita, the Bavli at Gittin 12b asked What did they say to him; and what did he answer to them?") The") ?"ומאי קא מהדר להו Bavli sought to explain the meaning of each statement in the dialogue. However, in conclusion, the Bavli at Gittin 13a offered a final reason for Rabbi Meir's position. This reason did not in any way correlate to any statement that Rabbi Meir made in the Baraita. In the Baraita, Rabbi Meir argued that it is a benefit for a slave to remain a slave solely priest's share of the crop). Rabbi Meir's whole) תרומה on the basis of his access to only. Rabbi Meir debated his position based on the תרומה and ,תרומה argument centers on different kind of relationship that, on the one hand, a wife, and on the other hand, a slave, —The fact presented at Ketubot 11a as "established" in tractate Gittin .תרומה have toward that a slave wants to remain a slave so that he can have sex with slavewomen—is, in the

230 It is of note that this previously established fact has yet to be established in the linear flow of the Talmud. For the reader of Ketubot 11a, the previously established fact has only been established in a tractate, Gittin, which has yet to be read. Such an occurrence in a text like the Talmud can easily be explained from a compositional standpoint. Put simply, the Talmud was not written in a linear manner and therefore the sugya at Ketubot 11a could be explained to post-date the sugya at Gittin 13a and therefore refer to it. However, from a reader's standpoint, the fact that the Talmud refers to itself out of order highlights the problem of a notion of a "beginning" and "end" to the analysis of a sugya. This problem, of "beginning" and "end" becomes compounded once an analysis the whole Talmud or multiple sugyot within the Talmud is endeavored.

Gittin passage itself, merely a manufactured hypothetical defense of a minority position in the Baraita. in the עבדא בהפקירא ניחא ליה The net effect of Bavli's use of the half expression Ketubot passage is to undermine the conclusion of the Gittin passage and lead the reader to wonder about the establishment of such a counterintuitive fact, that a slave is not interested in acquiring his freedom. Had the reader of the Ketubot passage been unaware of the Gittin passage to which it refers, such a reader would have no basis to understand sexually. The analogy between the slave and the convert would have simply been הפקירא understood to refer to the disadvantages of conversion in the following manner: since a slave, who is automatically converted upon manumission, would rather remain a slave than be burdened with God's many ritual and ethical commandments, a fortiori a free non-Jew would also not want to convert. Additionally, the Ketubot passage could have just as easily expressed the idea that it is a disadvantage for a slave to go free in a number of other ways without referring to the Gittin passage. The Ketubot passage could simply 231 have stated "it is a disadvantage for a slave to go free", as the Bavli does elsewhere.230F The fact that the Bavli expressed the idea that "a slave wants to remain a slave" by using a truncated and ambiguous phrase, one that is only understood through an appeal to the Gittin passage, impacts the Gittin text in a far more powerful manner than the function the phrase seeks to serve in the Ketubot passage. The Ketubot passage could have easily made its point without an appeal to the concept of slavery. It could simply have relied on the fact that a non-Jew would not want to be burdened by God's many 232 ritual and ethical requirements.231F Therefore, the mode of expression in Ketubot works to undermine that very conclusion of the Gittin passage that the Ketubot passage takes as its given. The reader is left wondering as to the Bavli's actual commitment to the idea that a slave would prefer a certain kind of sexual activity over his freedom from bondage. Once both passages are sorted out, the contrast between the reader's initial "first glance" misreading and the reader's later correction of that misreading serves to highlight the Bavli's ambivalence toward its own rhetorical conclusion, that slaves want to remain slaves. In this way, much as in the Baba Kamma 32a and Niddah 64b examples of the previous chapter, the Bavli's use of a particular expression works above and against the logic of the sugya to express, for the reader, an ambivalent attitude on the part of the Bavli's own commitment to its rhetoric. The use of a phrase that, when read literally and at first glance, calls the logic of the passage into question highlights the conflict within, and ambivalence toward, the logical conclusion of the passage. Once both passages (Ketubot 11a and Gittin 13a) are viewed simultaneously, the effect, for the reader trying to make meaning in, and of, the text, is that the Bavli seems to want to both say something and unsay it at the same time. If, as Empson argues, the use of ambiguous and contradictory terminology—terminology that does not say nothing but says both things— reveals a state of conflict in the mind of the author then here we have a representation of

231 Kiddushin 23a and Gittin 12b.

232 This appears to be the approach of the author of the Vatican 130 manuscript tradition, as noted in footnote 228 above. 89

the Bavli's conflicted state regarding slavery. On the one hand, slavery is a Biblical institution and therefore sanctioned by God. On the other hand, the Bavli seems to be is uncomfortable with that fact. 233 The interplay between the linear reading experience and the non-linear expectations of the text serve to call into question the assumption of a final resolution to any given text in the Bavli. As we move, in later chapters, to larger examples that involve greater numbers of texts, each requiring the reader to step outside the linear reading process in order to make sense of particular statements and words, the notion of a linear trajectory toward resolution will become more and more vague. What will become more clear is how the Bavli's use of particular words or phrases act to undermine the resolution at which the individual Bavli passages, in which they appear, seem to drive, when those words or phrases are read in light of the global Bavli context.

Summary of Part One: Ambiguity

In part one of this dissertation, I explore the role ambiguity plays in a particular reader's meaning making process. In doing so, I define the Bavli's implied reader as the global Bavli (GB) reader, a heuristically constructed reader who is fashioned by the

233 The source of this ambivalence can stem from the fact that Biblical law does not seem to allow for freeing slaves. Regarding non-Jewish slaves and slavewomen, Leviticus 25:44-46 states:

(מד) וְעַבְדְּ� וַאֲמָתְ� אֲשֶׁר יִהְיוּ לָ� מֵאֵת הַגּוֹיִם אֲשֶׁר סְבִיבֹתֵיכֶם מֵהֶם תִּקְנוּ עֶבֶד וְאָמָה. (מה) וְגַם מִבְּנֵי הַ תּוֹשָׁ בִ ים הַ גָּרִ ים עִ מָּ כֶ ם מֵ הֶ ם תִּ קְ נוּ וּמִ מִּ שְׁ פַּ חְ תָּ ם אֲ שֶׁ ר עִ מָּ כֶ ם אֲ שֶׁ ר הוֹלִ ידוּ בְּ אַרְ צְ כֶ ם וְהָיוּ לָכֶם לַאֲ חֻזָּה. (מו) וְהִתְנַחַלְתֶּם אֹתָם לִבְנֵיכֶם אַחֲרֵ יכֶם לָרֶשֶׁת אֲחֻזָּה לְעֹלָם בָּהֶם תַּעֲבֹדוּ וּבְאַחֵיכֶם בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אִישׁ בְּ אָחִ יו �א תִ רְ דֶּ ה בוֹ בְּפָרֶ �.

(44) And your male slave and your slavegirl whom you may have from the nations that are around you—from them you may buy a male slave and a slavegirl. (45) And also from the children of the settlers sojourning among them—from them and from their clan that is with them you may buy whom they have begotten in your land, and they shall become a holding for you. (46) And you shall hold them in your estate for your children after you to inherit a holding forever.

[Translation by Robert Alter in Robert Alter, The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary (W. W. Norton & Company, 2004).]

Based on verse 46, Rav Yehudah (a mid-3rd century Babylonian Amora) prohibits the freeing a slave (Berakhot 47b and, Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel, at Gittin 38b.) [The Talmud additionally discusses a debate between tow Tannaim, Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishma'el (early 2nd century), whether or not it is a requirement to own a non-Jewish slave in certain instances. (See Sotah 3a-b.)] Later, in chapter 5, I will address another moment of rabbinic ambivalence that appears to arise out of gap between the value system, or cultural and jurisprudential concerns, of the rabbis and the realities of legislating Biblical law in a culture and time that is foreign to the Biblical system. Chapter five will deal with virginity claims in that light. 90

expectations and assumptions of the text. This reader paradoxically operates while simultaneously omniscient vis-à-vis the entire Bavli and ignorant vis-à-vis the linear flow of the Bavli's arguments. The purpose of constructing the reader in this manner is to allow for a conception of the impact of the literary mechanisms of the Bavli outside of the temporal flow of the text. The GB reader finds meaning at the junction of the different readings the text produces. This idea is most apparent in my discussion of the ambiguous "sandal tapping/ hitting" phrase in the first half of chapter two. As a matter of convention, I must present the different readings produced by the text in a linear manner. However, even if the events of the reading process I describe are conceived of in an opposite manner the results are the same. It is not the order of misreading and reading that I present in this chapter that is significant. What is important is that both readings stand in marked contrast to each other. My description of the effect of ambiguity on the readings of historical readers, in the first chapter, aimed to highlight the position of the reader vis-à-vis the Bavli text. The historical readers I explore operate from a vantage point situated within the text, altering and rewriting the text as they read, when negotiating the ambiguities of the text. Ultimately, however, Rashi's two commentaries to the parallel Baraitot of Baba Batra and Menaḥot serve well to depict a frozen moment of undecidability. Rashi's two mutually exclusive commentaries both now sit alongside one another (though hundreds of pages apart) in the printed version of the Bavli we read today. I introduce historical readers in the first chapter, whether via manuscript evidence or via commentaries, in order to propose a conception of the Bavli as a text that is still being written—if not today, then certainly in the twelfth and thirteenth century. The writing being done by such Bavli readers is not significant quantitatively. However, as I demonstrated in the first three chapters, the introduction of a couple of seemingly superfluous words, the switching of the order of two words, and the replacement of a word with a synonym (oddly, the words "yes" and "no" can be synonyms in the Bavli) can all serve to subvert the rhetorical drive or greatly complicate the meaning of a Bavli text. I label this type of literary activity, and the people who perform it, the Superstam. Where the Stam works to stabilize the Bavli's mode of meaning conveyance the Superstam acts to destabilize the work of the Stam. This activity happens at the level of language and words rather than rhetorical or logical argument. The first three chapters of this dissertation deal with a mode through which the Bavli expresses its ambivalence attitude toward the decidability of key social and religious issues. Ambivalent attitudes toward the authorship of the Bible, capital punishment, slavery, and the concept of female virginity as a physically marked state are all expressed through the use of ambiguous terminology. Sometimes, (as was the case in chapter one and the first example of chapter two), the ambiguity is never resolved. In such cases the ambiguity's lack of resolution is what expresses the cultural anxiety. Other times, (as was the case in the second example of chapter two and chapter three), the cultural ambivalence is expressed when the reader attempts to resolve the ambiguity by appealing to other occurrences of the same ambiguous phrase throughout the Bavli. Part two of this dissertation builds on the concepts of the GB reader, the Superstam, and the non-linearity and circularity of the reading process introduced in part 91

one. However, part two explores an expression of the Bavli's ambivalence toward paternity, virginity claims, and rabbinic authority through the impact of a different type of literary mechanism: the effect of trigger words and simultexts on the experience of the GB reader. Part two builds upon the type of readings described in the second example of chapter two and chapter three. Once the idea of the GB reader has been introduced, I explore how this reader is affected by occurrences of rare— but, in these cases, not necessarily ambiguous—terminology throughout the Bavli. Much in the way I describe how the GB reader forms a complex web of meaning through the association of the three separate Bavli passages discussing Shmuel's expertise (in the second example of two), the remaining three chapters provide examples of webs of Bavli passages similarly linked by recurring rare terminology. These webs of passages also serve the function of undermining or subverting the apparent meaning or, more accurately, rhetorical drive of a particular Bavli passage, when that passage is read locally or in isolation.

PART II: TRIGGER WORDS

Chapter 4: Reading Beyond the Aggadic Sugya: Toward a New Theory on the Bavli's Composition

In the following three chapters, I highlight a central feature of the Bavli's mode of conveying meaning to its implied reader. In turn, an exploration of the effect of trigger words and simultexts on the global Bavli (GB) reader paves the way to a new understanding of the Bavli's redaction, creation, or authorship: the effect of. The reader I explore, the GB reader, is that reader that the text assumes and fashions. The GB reader is characterized by an a priori knowledge of the entire Bavli and a bias toward associative and non-linear modes of reading. By focusing on the experience of this heuristically constructed reader, I continue to demonstrate how the type of meaning that is found in the book as a whole often runs counter to what one might perceive when dividing the Bavli into its constituent parts. In doing so, I ask the question: who controls the meaning conveyance mechanisms of the text? If the Stam constructs the sugya, and therefore works to control its mode of transmitting meaning to its readers, then there is a different hand at work in the counter-meaning conveyed by the interactions between two, or more, sugyot. This counter-meaning is only conveyed to a certain kind of reader and through particular literary mechanisms. The Bavli's mode of presentation assumes that its reader already knows every obscure reference made by a local Bavli passage. This is true even of references that have not yet occurred in the linear flow of the text, as was described in chapter three. The GB reader attempts to engage the Bavli linearly, following the rhetorical flow of words on the page, yet is constantly driven from that linear reading experience by two factors. The first is the Bavli's mode of presentation. Although the Bavli imparts itself to its reader in a linear fashion, the introduction of each new set of words on the page often drives the reader backwards through the text, forcing the reader to remap meaning on words already read. This process was described in chapter one. The second factor is the mode through which the GB reader works to resolve ambiguity. This reader resolves ambiguity by understanding a word or phrase through its contextual usage elsewhere in the Bavli. This form of associative reading was described in the second half of chapter two. Through an analysis of the role ambiguity plays in the GB reader's meaning making process, the first part of this dissertation focused on how the Superstam expresses ambivalence in moments of heightened cultural tension. The second part of this dissertation describes how the Superstam also expresses that same ambivalence through the use of non-ambiguous terminology. In the following three chapters I locate the work of the Superstam through an exploration of theeffect of trigger words and simultexts on the GB reader. Trigger words are rare words or phrase which operate on that reader already habituated to non-linear and associative modes of reading. This reader is also familiar with the Bavli in its entirety. Due to the GB reader's training and 94

knowledgebase, trigger words function by activating those particular other Bavli passages in which those trigger words also appear, the simultexts. For the GB reader, the trigger words activate the simultexts, and all of their content and context, in the same manner in which the GB reader has been accustomed to resolving ambiguity. The GB reader simultaneously reads the activated passages together with the original passage and forms a complex web of meaning. Often, the web of meaning acts to counter the logic or rhetoric of the original passage read in isolation. The mark of the Superstam is found in these moments. The examples I use to describe the trigger word/simultext effect, in the following three chapters, demonstrate that Super-stammaitic activity is not limited by genre. Rather the Superstam acts to unify the Bavli, for its reader, into a single book by virtue of the associations that Super-stammaitic activity encourages. I therefore provide examples found in sections of the Bavli classified as halkahic (legal) and aggadic (non- legal), as well as in combinations of the two.234

In this chapter, I first explore a local reader's attempt to logically make sense of an ambiguous dialogue between two rabbis and a noblewoman. As was the case with in the Bavli passages concerning Moses death, treated in chapter one, I describe how the reader's attempt to linearly read a Bavli passage is thwarted by the ambiguous presentation of the words in the text. With the introduction of each new line of dialogue the reader is forced to reassess the meaning of the previous lines of dialogue. I then explore how the meaning of the passage is altered when the story is read in its extended and, then, global contexts. In treating this Bavli passage, I provide manuscript evidence as to the late (post-Geonic) and recurring nature of Super-stammaitic activity. To detail this phenomenon, I have selected a short Bavli passage, which features a confrontation between two rabbis and a noblewoman. This Baba Metzia 84a story is the eponymous tale of the book in which the theory of a Super-stammaitic force in the Bavli upon which I build is presented: the fat rabbis.235 At the conclusion of the story the reader is left believing that the rabbis have bested the noblewoman at a game of wits. The story is immediately followed by another Harpania), that is only found in) הרפניא ,related passage that contains a unique place name a handful of other locations in the Bavli. In one of those locations the etymology of the town's name is defined in a manner that calls the conclusion of the Baba Metzia story into question. The appearance of this rare place name at Yevamot 17a, and the context in which it appears, causes the GB reader to reevaluate whether or not the rabbis, of Baba Metzia 84a, had actually won their verbal joust with the noblewoman. Interestingly

234 I build here on the work of Barry Scott Wimpfheimer, Narrating the Law: A Poetics of Talmudic Legal Stories (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011).

235 Daniel Boyarin, Socrates and the Fat Rabbis (University of Chicago Press, 2009). Boyarin is perhaps the first to describe the organizing force of the Bavli, a literary activity that is beyond and against the work of the Stam. Boyarin describes the organization of the multiple voices in dialogue in the Bavli as the work of the "Stam of the Bavli," an author function distinct from that of the Stam of the sugya. I use the term Superstam to denote a different kind of activity. However, both Boyarin and I are interested in understanding the literacy nature of the Bavli when viewed as a unified book rather than a miscellany. 95

enough, one of the six extant medieval manuscripts for Baba Metzia 84a replaces the place name with that of another town. That town also appears at Yevamot 17a but elicits an opposite effect, reinforcing the fact that the rabbis had succeeded in defeating the noblewoman in their debate. The author of this variant manuscript tradition was obviously impacted by the association between the Baba Metzia and Yevamot passages but altered the effect of that association without erasing it. The existence of this type of textual tweaking at such a late date (probably in the twelfth century) raises questions about the nature of the evolution of the text of the Bavli in the first place.

The Fat Rabbis Story

The story of Rabbi Ishmael the son of Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Elazar the son of Rabbi Shimon, "the fat rabbis", appears as one of a series of stream of consciousness narrative asides sandwiched in between two halves of one of the longest self-contained biographical sketches in the Bavli. The subject of this long biographical tale, which extends from Baba Metzia 83b through 85a, is one of the fat rabbis, Rabbi Elazar. In order to understand an important linguistic nuance of the fat rabbis story, which I will later address, it is necessary to have in mind the general outline of the Bavli context in which the shorter "fat rabbis" story appears.236 The longer biographical narrative begins when Rabbi Ela'zar is appointed a policeman by the Roman government and charged with catching thieves. When a certain laundryman taunts Rabbi Elazar for turning Jews over to the Roman government, Rabbi Elazar responds by turning the laundryman over to the authorities. When Rabbi Elazar realizes that he has overreacted, he feels remorse and tries to save the laundryman from execution. But it is too late. The man has already been executed. Rabbi Elazar is very distraught. Even when he is told that the laundryman had actually committed grave sins punishable by death, he cannot be consoled. Rabbi Elazar decides to divine whether or not he has acted properly in turning the laundryman over to the Romans for execution. The test would be whether or not his fat would putrefy when laid out in the summer sun. Rabbi Elazar has a liposuction procedure performed on him and buckets of fat are removed from his body and placed in the summer sun. His fat does not putrefy, signaling his guiltlessness. The narrative is then interrupted by several digressions before continuing, more than a page later, and as if these digressions never happened.237 The second half of the

236 For a translation of the entire long biographical tale of Rabbi Elazar the son of Rabbi Shimon, see Daniel Boyarin, Carnal Israel (University of California Press, 1995), 219-225.

237 The first digression tells us that Rabbi Ishmael the son of Rabbi Yosi, the other fat Rabbi, was similarly appointed a policemen by the Roman government. The introduction of Rabbi Ishmael, his similarity to Rabbi Elazar, and the image of the buckets of fat being removed from Rabbi Elazar's stomach, lead to the digression of the fat rabbis story. That story is then followed by the list of the sizes of various Rabbi's organs which is begun by Rabbi Yoḥanan commenting on the size of Rabbi Ishmael the son of Rabbi Yosi's 96

story opens with a postoperative scene. Rabbi Elazar is still downtrodden over his role in the laundryman's execution. The exonerating evidence of his non-putrefied fat does not help assuage his grief. Rabbi Elazar prays for afflictions to befall him in order to effect his atonement. His afflictions result in enormous medical costs. When his wife finds out that his ailments were self-inflicted, caused by his prayers and not the result of his surgery, she is furious. Apparently she had been paying his medical expenses with her father's money. She decides to leave her husband and move back to her father's house. While separated from his wife, Rabbi Elazar's financial condition changes considerably. He is now rich. Meanwhile, Rabbi Elazar's wife, curious about his situation, asks their daughter to go check up on him. Rabbi Elazar sends his daughter back to his estranged wife bearing a message about his newfound wealth. Rabbi Elazar's wife had left him over money issues and now he wants her to know that money will no longer be a problem. The text of the story does not present his wife's response nor the details or timeframe of her return but she does appear to be living with him at the time of his death. Having explained the context in which the fat rabbis story appears in the Bavli, I now present a literal translation of the text as it appears at Baba Metzia 84a:

(Key= rabbinic Hebrew; Babylonian Aramaic; Biblical Hebrew)

When Rabbi Ishmael the son of Rabbi Yosi238 and Rabbi Elazar the son of Rabbi Shimon would encounter239 one

organ. The next digression contrasts the grotesqueness of the fat rabbis to the beauty of Rabbi Yoḥanan. This digression leads to a story of how Rabbi Yoḥanan would hang around ritual baths so that women would see him when they exited the baths. This would cause them to have children who would both be as physically beautiful as him as well as be able to study Torah like him. The combination of Rabbi Yoḥanan's physical beauty, Torah knowledge, and bathing, leads to the final digression which returns to the subject of thieves, insults, and heaviness of heart. A thief, named Reish Lakish, sees the beautiful Rabbi Yoḥanan bathing and mistakes him for a woman. After a brief exchange in the water, Rabbi Yoḥanan convinces Reish Lakish to leave the life of thievery behind and study Torah with him in exchange for his far more beautiful sister. This final narrative digression ends in tragedy when Rabbi Yoḥanan, later, insults Reish Lakish by reminding him of his past life as a thief. Both of them end up dying from the heartache that ensues from the insult. The typesetters of the Bomberg Talmud (Venice, 1520s)—perhaps as a joke or perhaps accidentally—organized the text so that when one turns the page from 84a to 84b the reader is abruptly brought back into the original biographical story of Rabbi Elazar the son of Rabbi Shimon as if none of the digressions ever happened. Most subsequent major Talmud editions follow the Bomberg pagination.

238 MS Escorial elides this name and merely has "Rabbi Ishmael the son of Rabbi." Rabbi Ishmael the son of Rabbi Yosi initially made his appearance in this chapter when he was compared to Rabbi Elazar the son of Rabbi Shimon. This appearance occurs immediately following Rabbi Elazar's liposuction. The comparison made between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Ishmael had to do with the fact that they were both appointed enforcers of civil law by, and for, the Roman government. In the course of their duties as Roman 97

another a herd240 of oxen would pass241 between them242 and not touch243 244 243F said to them: "Your(מטרוניתא) A certain noblewoman (בניכם אינם שלכם) ".sons are not yours 245 246 They responded: "Theirs244F are greater245F than 247 (שלהן גדול משלנו)" ours.246F 248 (כל שכן) All the more so!"247F" law enforcers they both found themselves in a position to turn over Jews to the secular authorities. It is only after that association that they are brought face to face and are compared physically.

239 Literally: "would happen to come upon each other".

.(herd of oxen) בקרא yoke of oxen) instead of) פדנא MS Escorial has 240

241 Literally "enter". Florence specifies "pass between them."

242 MS Escorial specifies "under their stomachs."

".meaning "would not reach them נגעה instead of פגעא MS Hamburg has 243

maṭrônîtāʾ) is generally understood to mean a Roman woman of high stature. Women bearing) מטרוניתא 244 this appellation are often seen interacting with rabbis in the Talmud. For a discussion of the Matrona literature as well as an alternate conception as to how to understand this character in rabbinic literature see Tal Ilan, Mine and Yours are Hers: Retrieving Women’s History from rabbinic Literature (Leiden: Brill, 1997)., pp. 240-262, 297-310.

While the narrative portions of this story are presented in Babylonian .שלהן The term used here is 245 Aramaic the dialogue is presented in rabbinic Hebrew. It is important to note that in authentic rabbinic can be used for "נ" does not necessarily denote the feminine. In rabbinic Hebrew a final "נ" Hebrew a final both the masculine and the feminine. This fact is often obscured in our printed editions because of a history of scribal emendations reflecting this arcane grammatical anomaly. Not so arcane at all, nor a grammatical anomaly; it’s simply a linguistic fact that final m and final nun merged. I point this out to highlight the obscure nature of this dialogue. Since the noblewoman's response is itself vague it is therefore not immediately obvious to the reader whether "bigger" refers to the only subject introduced thus far, their sons, or some other unmentioned feminine subject such as their wives. The Escorial manuscript .which would certainly mean the subject is their sons שלהם has

246 The Vilna edition as well as the Soncino Print, the Escorial, Munich, Vatican 115, and Vatican 116-117 which appears in the Florence גדולה rather than the feminine גדול manuscripts all have the masculine form and Hamburg manuscripts. This discrepancy highlights the vagueness of what exactly is the referent of "greater."

meaning "theirs is greater than yours." This word is very משלנו instead of משלכם Vatican 116-117 has 247 confusing because it is the masculine plural for "yours" and therefore has no obvious referent since they appear to be speaking only with an individual female.

248 I present this here as the noblewoman's retort in following with the manuscript tradition. The Escorial, Munich, and Vatican 115 manuscripts all have language denoting a change of speaker. The Escorial, אי הכי Florence, Hamburg, Munich, Vatican 115, and Vatican 116-117 manuscripts all have the phrase implying the speaker has changed. This would be translated as "If that is the case כל שכן before the phrase 98

that this is what they (איכא דאמרי) There are those who say 249 כי כאיש ) said to her: "AsU is the man, so is his virilityU"248F .(גבורתו that this is what they (איכא דאמרי) There are those who say (אהבה דוחקת את הבשר) "said to her: "Love squeezes the flesh And what was the reason why they answered her? Does it

not state "DoU not answer a fool according to his folly [lest 250 you also become like him]"?U 249F 251 In order not to cast suspicion on their sons.250F

then all the more so!" However, in the Vilna edition and the Soncino Print it is not introduced with language denoting a change of speaker and it is therefore up to the reader to decide whether the speaker has changed or, alternatively whether this exclamation is the conclusion of the rabbis' response to the noblewoman. Since the meaning of the exchange is extremely vague in the first place the reader is therefore placed in a highly active role in deciphering the content and meaning of the exchange between the parties as it is presented in the printed editions.

249 Judges 8:21.

250 Proverbs 26:4. The conclusion of the verse is only included in the Florence manuscript. Hamburg has . וגו'

שהם/ן Literally "cause the spread of evil talk." MSS Escorial and Hamburg complete the sentence 251 that they are bastards) with MS Hamburg using the more arcane and accurate form for the) ממזרים/ן masculine in rabbinic Hebrew (see footnote 245). There is a significant amount of textual variation between the manuscripts for this passage. I have offered a translation of the Vilna edition and provide a chart detailing all of the MSS and Prints below. Some manuscripts seem to make more sense from a literary perspective and have some kind of even descending progression as far as sizes [e.g. 9, 7, 5, 3.] From a content perspective, the most important variation is whether or not Rabbi Elazar the son of Rabbi Shimon is included in the list and whether his penis is given at 9 qab, in with Rabbi Ishmael's, or as 7 qab and therefore of lesser stature. One other important difference between the manuscripts is the town used to describe the type of basket that Rav Papa's organ is compared too. This point will be discussed at length later.

Rabbi Ishmael the son of Rabbi Elazar the son of Rabbi Rav Papa Rabbi Yosi Rabbi Shimon Yoḥanan 5, some say Jug from Vilna 9 3 Harpania 5, some say Jug from Escorial 9 9, some say 5 3 Harpania Jug from Florence 9 Harpania 3, some say Jug from Hamburg 9 7 5 Harpania 5, some say Jug from Munich 9 3 Harpania 5, some say Jug from Soncino Print 9 3 Harpania 99

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The organ252 of Rabbi Ishmael the son of Rabbi Yosi them. is253 like a nine 'qab'254 water skin255. Rav Papa said: The organ of Rabbi Yoḥanan is like a five qab water skin 256 257 (דקורי . Rav Papa himself was like a Harpanian255F jug256F דהרפנאי)

5, some say Jug from Vatican 115 9 9 3 Harpania Vatican 116- Jug from Nahar 9 9 5 117 Pema

as "organ" rather than "penis" to maintain the euphemistic language of the איבריה I have translated 252 original Talmudic text. Nearly all commentators understand the word to mean penis with the exception of two cited by Beṣalel Ashkenazi (c. 1520- c. 1592, Egypt and Jerusalem) in Shittah Mekubetzet in an attempt to censor Rashi's dominant reading. 1) An anonymous student of Isaac Alfasi (known as the Rif, Yom Tov ibn (2 .(אכילתו) "North Africa and Spain), understands this word to mean "appetite ,1013-1103 Asevilli (1250-1330, Spain, known as the Ritva [or Ritba]) believes the word to mean either "arm" or "thigh." [It should be noted that Rashi does not actually comment on this word. Ashkenazi probably surmises that Rashi's earlier comment—that the verse "as is a man, so is his strength" refers to the size of organ) as "penis."] Judah the) איבריה the rabbis' penises—must have stemmed from his understanding of son of Beṣalel Loew (known and the Maharal of Prague, 1520-1609), in Ḥidushei Aggadot, understands the word to mean "penis" but understands it symbolically.

253 I suppose that this could alternately be translated as "was" but it is unclear where the narrator is situated time-wise at each moment in the narration. If the narrator is positioned at each progressing chronological moment of the rabbis making the statement then "is" is more accurate.

qab) is the basic unit for measuring volume in the Talmud. All other measurements are derived) קב A 254 qab) is) קב qab); etc.] A) קב sěʾâ) is 6) סאה qab); a) קב rôbaʿ) is a quarter of a) רובע from it [e.g. a approximately somewhere between 1.5 to 2.5 liters.

ḥēmet) is a liquid container made from the skin of a goat. The skin is removed intact from the) חמת 255 animal and the bag is filled from the hole in between the legs. It is a word that appears in the Biblical story of Hagar and the young Ishmael in the desert (Genesis 21: 14, 15, 19). In that story the water-skin is empty and Hagar fears for her son's life; then she see a well, fills the water-skin, and her son is saved. It is interesting that our list of Rabbi's penis sizes starts with Rabbi Ishmael and although the rest of the paragraph is written in Aramaic one Biblical word is used. This word only appears in the Bible the chapter dealing with Ishmael, which is also the same chapter as, and directly following, the circumcision of Isaac. ḥēmet) makes its) חמת Additionally the words that end the verse directly preceding that in which the word for he is your seed). It is most interesting) כי זרעך הוא first appearance in the Bible closes with the words that the terminology used to describe the size of these rabbis' penises is a feminized one, a receptacle. Even ḥēmet) the term used) חמת the one instance where a Rabbi's penis size is described by a different term than ḥēmet) is also used in the Talmud to describe the rabbinic incomprehensibility) חמת .which is a jug רקודא is of man's desire for women and just how unnatural this desire would be were it not for God's command to filled with excrement and her mouth (חמת) procreate: "It was taught [in a Baraita] A woman is a water-skin is filled with blood yet all run after her." (Shabbat 152a )

256 Harpanian jugs are only mentioned one other time in the Bavli; and that instance is also in the context of size comparison. Shabbat 127a uses Harpanian jugs as an example of small jugs. The exact size of the jugs is not discussed. 100

As is the case with most Bavli passages, the meaning of this text is not obvious at first glance. The reader is therefore; and some forced say into like a threehighly qab. active role when attempting to both make sense of the simple meaning of the text understand its deeper signification when viewed in the broader context of the Bavli. The logic of the dialogue is quite obscure. Several interpretive problems immediately present themselves: What exactly did the noblewoman mean when she said "Your children are not yours"? When the rabbis respond "Theirs are greater than ours," who exactly are the subjects referred to by "theirs" and what is the unnamed object that is "greater than ours"? What does the noblewoman mean when she retorts "All the more so!"? How do each of the rabbis' final alternate responses—the Biblical quote from Judges, "As is the man so is his strength," and the folk saying, "Love compresses the flesh"—address the noblewoman's retort? Finally, does the paragraph that follows this story in the Bavli, delineating the size of various rabbis' organs, shed light on any of these questions?

The logical flow of the dialogue in this short narrative is so perplexing that, to date, there have only been, to my knowledge, three commentators258 who have endeavored to detail exactly what is taking place in each and every line of dialogue: Rashi, Moses the son of Isaac of Pizentz;259 and Daniel Boyarin. (Of course, one cannot overlook the role that the somewhat bawdy nature of the subject matter might have played in deterring some prudish commentators.)260 The lack of clarity in this passage is more the result of vagueness than ambiguity.261 A line of dialogue is vague when it is not clearly expressed, and ambiguous when it clearly expresses more than one thing. Therefore, vagueness is not an expression of ambivalence; it is rather not much of an expression at all. There are two aspects of this dialogue that are vague. The first is linguistic vagueness. It is unclear what the referents are for the rabbis' statement "Theirs are greater than ours." The second vague aspect of this dialogue is the lack of clarity as to

.as correct רקודא There seems to be some confusion as to the correct spelling of this term. Sokoloff has 257 [Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002), 1093.] However, all manuscripts besides . דקורא MS Florence have

258 The Maharal of Prague (Judah Loew the son of Beṣalel, d. 1609), in his Ḥidushei Aggadot, comments at great length in providing a symbolic interpretation of the story. I do not include him in this list because he does not endeavor to explain the logic of the narrative.

259 Late sixteenth century, Bzenec [Bisenz], Moravia.

260 See Daniel Boyarin, Unheroic Conduct: The Rise of Heterosexuality and the Invention of the Jewish Man, 1st ed. (University of California Press, 1997), 97 n.38; and footnote 252, above.

261 However, in this case, the clarification of the dialogue's vagueness might result in a kind of ambiguity. The reader still might not be able to decide between two possible readings. 101

the intentions of the parties when making their statements. The language used by the noblewoman is not vague. Both of her lines of dialogue, "Your sons are not yours" and "All the more so" are clear on a linguistic level. What is unclear is her intention in, and motivation for, saying these lines. Much like my analysis of the reading process in chapter one, I will follow the reader's attempt to read this text linearly. In doing so, I demonstrate how each new line of dialogue, presented in the text, forces the reader to move backwards and re-interpret what has already been read. For the reader of the Bavli, any attempt at linear reading itself leads to non-linear reading.262 One of the primary ways in which the Bavli's fashions the GB reader is through the habituation of this non-linear mode of reading. In the second part of this chapter, I analyze this passage both contextually and globally. In doing so, I will show how the Bavli fashions the GB reader's associative reading technique.

A Linear Attempt at a Local Reading

When confronted with a text of this sort, he local reader must begin from a spectrum of possibilities and then work backwards, as each new clue presents itself, in an attempt to limit those possibilities and arrive at a feasible and coherent interpretation of the text as a whole. The first sentence of the story is significantly important to the reader as it provides the starting point for the imaginary process through which the reader understands the logic of the dialogue between the rabbis and the noblewoman. By imaginary process, I mean the creation of images in the mind of the reader. Since descriptive language is very rare in the Bavli, the reader is therefore forced to provide that missing imagery. The opening sentence of the story merely states that the two rabbis were so extremely large that when they would stand together oxen could pass between them. 263 What remains obscure is whether the outlandishness of this image is one of larger-than- life giganticism or their overindulging-in-life obesity? Are the rabbis of monstrous proportions because of a freak occurrence in the natural world or simply because of their inability to control their own physical desires? It is this dichotomy of images that drives the interpretations of those few interpreters who have ventured to explicate the logic of this passage over the course of the last thousand years. As the local reader moves line by line through the dialogue, a series of logical possibilities must be considered for each line of dialogue. For the first line of dialogue, "Your sons are not yours," there are five likely interpretations. Each of these interpretations correspond, to varying degrees, either with the image of the morbidly

262 This process was treated at length in the first chapter of this dissertation.

263 The images of "herd" and "pair" present different pictures. 102

obese rabbi whose fat conceals his genitals or the image of the freakishly giant rabbi whose genitals are also proportionally large. Likewise, each of these interpretations correspond to the noblewoman questioning either the physical possibility of intercourse between the rabbis and their wives or the likelihood that these rabbis would be able to keep their wives from straying. The chart below will serve as a visual aid for the analysis that follows:

103

Image Evoked:

Morbidly Freak ish Possible Meaning of "Your sons are not yours" Obese Giant 1) You're physically repulsive and therefore certainly cuckolded X 2) You're too fat to have sex X 3) Your penises are too big to have sex X 4) It's physically impos sible for a woman to c arry your child X 5) Your sons do not resemble your appearance X X

Possible Meaning of "Theirs are bigger than ours" Ans we r to: Refers to:

Our wives are also repulsive #1 Wives' stomachs Our wives are also obese #2 Wives' stomachs Our penises can fit #3 Wives' vaginas Our wives can carry a large baby #4 Stomach/Womb Son's stomachs Our sons do look like us #5 /bodies

Possible Meaning of "All the more so!" Addresses: Answered with:

Both "As is the man, so is his strength/virility" (כי כאיש גבורתו) It is certainly impos sible for two obese people to have sex #2 with each other and "Love compresses the אהבה) "flesh (דוחקת את הבשר "As is the man, In any event, you're not a sexual match for your wives and so is his #3 therefore they surely turned to someone else to satisfy them. strength/virility" (כי כאיש גבורתו)

The possibilities for the first line of dialogue are: 1) The rabbis are too ugly and repulsive and their wives would certainly stray; 2) The rabbis are simply too fat to have sex; 3) Due to their gigantism their penises would be too big to have sex with a regular sized woman; 4) It would be physically impossible for a woman to carry their offspring; 104

5) Their sons do not resemble their own appearances.264 The final two interpretations are the weakest due to the following. The rabbis themselves must have had a mother who carried them. It is also unclear whether the noblewoman had ever seen their sons to make an assessment about the appearance of the rabbis' offspring. (Though it should be noted that Rabbi Elazar's son is described, a page later, as being so physically desirable that prostitutes would pay him to have sex with them [Baba Metzia 85a].) She certainly had never seen their wives.265 However, before dismissing these possibilities outright the reader waits to see which possibilities are illuminated by virtue of the logic of the dialogue. As the reader moves forward to the second line of dialogue all five possibilities remain intact. Each interpretation of "Your sons are not yours" is countered with a possible reading of "Theirs are bigger than ours." 1) Our wives stomachs are bigger than ours—they are also repulsive and therefore wouldn't stray; 2) Our wives are also obese; and if obese people cannot have sex, then how did they have children to begin with?; 3) Our wives vaginas are bigger than our penises. Therefore, sex with them is possible; 4) Our wives stomachs (or wombs) are large enough to carry giant offspring; 5) Our sons do look like us. Although interpretations 4 and 5 were initially deemed unlikely they have not yet been overruled by the second line of dialogue. Once the third line of dialogue is introduced, however, only two of the original five possible interpretations remain logically feasible. When the noblewoman responds "All the more so" only two of the five possibilities continue to make sense. Interpretations number 1, 4, and 5 no longer make sense. "All the more so" would not be a logical response to the claims that their wives are more repulsive than they are, their wives can carry large babies, or that their sons resemble them in appearance. This is because interpretations 1, 4, and 5 would not provide the noblewoman with a reason to believe that the rabbis' sons were not the result of a union between the rabbis and their respective wives. The noblewoman, however, can be understood to be responding to interpretations number 2 and 3. According to interpretation number 2, where the rabbis respond that their wives are also obese, the noblewoman would be countering with: If your wives' stomachs are bigger than yours, you would certainly be unable to engage in sexual intercourse with your wives. According to interpretation number 3, that their wives vaginas are bigger than their penises, she would be responding: Then you certainly would not be able to satisfy them sexually and they surely turn elsewhere to seek sexual satisfaction. The noblewoman's response following interpretation number 3, however, is the less likely of the two because the insult is less stinging. In following interpretation number 3, the noblewoman would simply be going back and forth between opposite claims of sexual incompatibility. Her initial claim would have been that their penises were too large to

264 The gender of the rabbinic Hebrew word for "theirs" is uncertain and therefore may either refer to the rabbis' wives or their sons. (See footnotes 246 and 247)

265 Though this fact is not known until the reader sees the rabbis' response. Also, see footnote 268. 105

have sex with their wives. Her retort, then, would be the exact opposite: that their penises were too small to satisfy their wives. The two alternate answers that close the dialogue, "As is the man so is his strength/virility" and "Love compresses the flesh," also mitigate in the direction of reading number 2 (that it is certainly impossible for two obese people to have sex with each other) over reading number 3 (that the rabbis and their wives are sexually incompatible). Whereas both of the alternate answers seem to address reading number 2, reading number 3 seems to not be addressed by "Love compresses the flesh", only by "As is the man so is his strength/virility." For reading number 2, "As is the man so is his strength/virility" has the rabbis responding to the impossibility of two obese people having sex by explaining that the rabbis had extremely long penises that extended beyond their fat. Likewise, "Love compresses the flesh" alternately explains how two obese people may in fact engage in sexual intercourse. However, for reading number 3, only one of the alternate responses make sense. "As is the man so is his strength/virility" seems to only address the issue of the rabbis inability to satisfy their wives. According to reading number 3, the dialogue would go as follows: a) the noblewoman question the legitimacy of the rabbis' children by questioning how two giants with enormous penises can possibly have sex; b) the rabbis respond by saying that their wives vaginas are even larger; c) the noblewoman responds that, in any event, the rabbis and their wives would still have incompatible sex organs and therefore the rabbis would not be able to satisfy their wives and keep them from straying; d) the rabbis then respond that their virility ensures their wives' sexual satisfaction. According to this reading, the alternate response "Love compresses the flesh" does not seem to address the issue of their mismatched genitals. Accordingly, reading number 2 is the most logical interpretation of the referents of the words in this vague dialogue. Reading number 3 appears to fall short for two reasons. The first is that it does not appear to account for the alternate response "Love compresses the flesh." The second is that such a reading makes reduces the argument between the rabbis and the noblewoman to: a) "you're not sexually compatible with your wives"; b) "yes we are"; c) "no you're not"; d) "yes we are." However, the fact that the noblewoman is silenced, signaling the rabbis have won the debate , might have something to do with the fact that the rabbis, with their final response, changed the issue of the debate. Whereas the first three lines of dialogue had to do with genital compatibility, the rabbis won the debate by arguing that there is more to sexual compatibility than sexual compatibility. Once this fact is introduced, the second alternate answer begins to make some sense. "Love compresses the flesh" becomes a response to the noblewoman's claim that the rabbis would not be able to satisfy their wives because their penises are too small for their wives vaginas; it is a description of a physical process that resolves the issue of the genital incompatibility.266

(flesh) sometimes refers to genitals. (See Appendix B) בשר In the Bible, the word 266 106

explaining how their small penises still satisfy their wives. Therefore, reading number 2 would seem more likely. Yet, neither of the two medieval commentators who actually attempt to explain 267 the logic of this dialogue do so in accordance with reading number 2.266F Perhaps this is because, according to reading number 2, the rabbis' response of "Theirs are greater than ours" does not seem to make sense. What have the rabbis accomplished by adding this 268 fact?267F Why would the rabbis provide the noblewoman with further ammunition? 269 Rashi268F and Moses Pizentz each incorporate both the image of obesity and the image of gigantism into their explanations of the give and take of this verbal confrontation between the noblewoman and the rabbis. Both commentators also see the two alternate 270 that close the dialogue as addressing two different questions.269F (איכא דאמרי) answers However, neither commentator does a particularly good job of clarifying the cryptic dialogue between the fat rabbis and the noblewoman. Rashi's commentary to this passage is somewhat muddled and is perhaps only understood by concluding that Rashi was working with a different Bavli text, one that is no longer extant in any of the 271 manuscript traditions.270F (I have provided a detailed analysis of Rashi's commentary to 272 this passage in Appendix B.) Moses Pizentz271F introduces an extremely creative solution

267 However, Rashi does come close.

268 Solomon Luria (known as Maharshal, 1510-1573, Poland) is troubled by this fact. He explains that the rabbis were acting preemptively and were afraid that the noblewoman will later see their wives and then definitely think that the rabbis' sons were bastards.

269 For an explication of Rashi's commentary to this passage as well as some of the issues his text and commentary raise see Appendix A.

there are those that say) it) איכא דאמרי To be sure, when the Bavli presents alternate answers in form of 270 is generally assumed that they are two different answers to the same question. Judah Loew the son of does indeed see both , חידושי אגדות Beṣalel (Maharal) of Prague (c. 1520-1609), in his commentary alternate answers as addressing the same question. He goes to great lengths to demonstrate how they are, in fact, two distinct answers and not two ways of saying the same thing. I did not include Loew's commentary above when I intimated that only two medieval commentators attempt to explain the logic of the dialogue between the fat rabbis and the noblewoman. Loew's commentary on this story, as is the case with most of his commentary on aggadot, explains the dialogue symbolically rather than logically. It is first necessary to buy into Loew's symbolic system before accepting his explanations as logically following the text. Since his symbolic system is not rooted in, or drawn from, the text of the Talmud itself his commentary does not assist in understanding the type of reading processes I examine in this dissertation.

271 See Appendix B for a translation and explanation of Rashi's commentary to this passage.

272 Not much is known of the biography of Moshe the son of Isaac, other than that he lived in Biscenz, Moravia during the latter half of the sixteenth century. His largest workThis wasreading, a book however, of essays on is two a bit hundredcontrived. and fiftyThe-six noblewoman aggadic passages initially in the engaged Babylonian the Talmud, rabbis entitled in debate Derash because Moshe .they [For appearedPizentz as ato window be giants into withthe shifting giant attitudepenises. toward Thi aggadas reading among would Ashkenazi have thewriters rabbis due toend the the dissemination debate by of printed versions of the Ein Yaakov (representing a Sephardi intepretive tradition), see Avraham Eisen, “The Composition ‘Derash Moshe’ by R. Moshe of Bisenz and its Place in the Interpretation of Talmudic Aggadah in the Ashkenazi-Polish Milieu in the Sixteenth Century” (The University of Ben-Gurion in the Negev, 2010).] 107

to the problem of incoherence in this passage, namely, that the parties misunderstand each other. However, rather than saying what he means outright, Pizentz obscures his commentary in a sea of rich symbolic imagery that highlights several of the issues at play in this story.273 Daniel Boyarin follows Pizentz's lead in explaining the logic of the dialogue by appealing to the fact that the parties misunderstand each other.274

273 Derash Moshe (Krackow, 1589). My transcription follows the Krackow 1589 edition.

זה המאמר נכון וכשר הדבר בעיני לפרשו ולבארו לפי שהו[א] קשה הציור וביחו[ד] כי לאיזו תועל[ת] השיבוה שלהן גדול משלנו. ואומר שהנה הם הבינו כוונת שאילתה ואמרה בניכם אינן שלכם כלומר אינכם יכולין להיזקק לנשותיכן הבינו הם דבריה לסיבת רוב עוביים וכובדם אשר לזאת הסיבה מבלתי יכולת נשותיהן לסבול לבא עליהם כדרך כל הארץ כי לא יכלה ארץ מגוריהם לשאת אותם ולזה השיבוה שלהם גדול משלנו ובזה נחה שקטה שילתה זאת. ו"קל. ואמנם היא להיות דבריה וכונתה מחמת עצמם לא מחמת מניע(ת) נשותיהם כפי שהבינו הם בלתי כי בעבור כי שמנו עבו דשנו כסו בשרם כסל למו ואח"וריהם (ואחריהם [בפיהם ירצו סלה]. תהלים מט:יד). ולזה שאלה לפי דבריהם כ"ש (כל שכן) וכדי שלא להוציא לעז על בניהם ענו אותה על כל שתי אלו השאלות ולפי ה"אד (האיכא דאמרי) הראשון ענו ואמרו לה כי כאיש גבורתו כלומר אם דעתך כפי הבנתינו בראשונה כבר ענינו על זה בראשון שלה[ן] גדול משלנו וזהו כי כאיש גבורתו מה שיורה על גודל כריסת נשותיהן ו"קל. ואמנם על השאיל[ה] השניה ענו אהבה דוחקת את הבשר והוא ה"אד האחרון. ומר אמר חדא ומר אמ[ר] חדא ולא פליגי וכל זה כדי שלא להוציא לעז על בניהם ענו אותה כן ולכן פירשנו זה המאמר.

274 In 1991, the fat rabbis story first made its appearance in Daniel Boyarin's published work. In an article entitled “Literary Fat rabbis: On the Historical Origins of the Grotesque Body,” Boyarin brings this Talmudic tale to the English speaking academic community for the first time. His treatment of this story in that article is more concerned with content than logic and meaning. Rather than engage with the particularities of the problems in the text Boyarin seems to simply use the text as evidence that grotesqueness, reproductive anxiety, gender roles, and the like, are indeed dealt with in the Talmud in a literary manner. The appearance, in 1992, of his chapter "The Great Fat Massacre" signals Boyarin's first attempt to actually make sense of the logic of the narrative, what exactly is going on in each line of dialogue. It is this reading that also appears in Carnal Israel (1995) and Unheroic Conduct (1997) that I detail above. Although, in each of these books, Boyarin reads the logic of the dialogue in the same way he, nonetheless, explicates the story's meaning in a very different manner in each account. I find it interesting that Boyarin attributes the solution to the problems of the logic of the dialogue to two other scholars. He credits David Satran for introducing the interpretive notion that "vaginas" is the object of "greater" and Christine Hayes for introducing the notion that the rabbis and the noblewoman misunderstand each other. Boyarin is certainly giving credit where credit is due; but he also can be seen as trying to distance himself from a reading that he is not fully comfortable with due to its excess cleverness as well as its anachronistic conception of the way rabbinic stories work. The latter can be understood from later comments about his earlier reading and the fact that he finally abandoned this reading entirely. In his latest work, Socrates and the Fat Rabbis (2009), he refers to his earlier readings as "baroque" (ibid. p. 181) and opts for an extra- Talmudic solution where he explains the confused logic of the dialogue as a butchered attempt by the Bavli to acculturate a similar Hellenistic tale that had been circulating in the ancient world. His account is quite compelling but runs counter to the type of intra-Bavli reading that I espouse in this chapter. An earlier iteration of Boyarin's extra-Talmudic reading can be found in his chapter in the Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and rabbinic Literature. [Daniel Boyarin, “Literary Fat rabbis: On the Historical Origins of the Grotesque body,” Journal of the History of Sexuality 1, no. 4 (April 1991): 551-584.; Daniel Boyarin, "The Great Fat Massacre" in Howard Eilberg-Schwartz, People of the Body: Jews and Judaism from an Embodied Perspective (State University of New York Press, 1992).; Boyarin, Carnal Israel., pp. 197-225; 108

dialogue as follows: When the noblewoman says "Your sons are not yours" she meant that their stomachs were too big for them to possibly have sex. The rabbis, however, understood her statement to be about the size of their penises, being too large to possibly have sex. The rabbis therefore answer that their wives' vaginas are bigger than their penises. The noblewoman, in keeping with her original thought and oblivious to the rabbis' misinterpretation of her statement, thinks that the rabbis meant Boyarin that theirreads wives' the stomachs are bigger than their stomachs. She therefore says, "All the more so!" The rabbis now realize that they had originally misunderstood the noblewoman and realize that she was referring to the size of their stomachs and not the size of their penises. They answer her by either saying, depending on which tradition we follow, that their penises are long enough to make it past their stomachs or by saying something like "when there's a will there's a way."275 The irony of this reading is that what had originally been seen as an argument against the possibility that these rabbis were able to have sex with their wives, the enormity of their penises, eventually, according to the first tradition, becomes the argument for the possibility that they had sex with their wives. Though this enormity, over the course of the dialogue, shifts from girth to length.

However one goes about deciphering the verbal exchange that transpires in this story there is one thing that is clear. The two rabbis are confronted with a hostile adversary who engages them in a battle of wits, attacks their manhood, and casts doubt on the legitimacy of their offspring. The rhetorical structure of the story leads the reader to understand that the rabbis have bested the noblewoman, even if the details of what each party meant with each individual statement are obscure. The rabbis have the last word— or words, if the alternate answers are taken into account. The story thus ends and a new passage begins with a seemingly different narrative voice. Whether or not this second passage regarding the size of the organs of various rabbis is logically connected to 276 the preceding story about the fat rabbis is the subject of debate among commentators.275F ,(הרפנאי) "Regardless, this second passage contains one very important word, "Harpania that operates on the Bavli reader to call into question the very conclusion of the preceding fat rabbis story. Before addressing the impact of that word on the Bavli reader, I will first address the effect elicited by a phrase that appears within the fat rabbis story itself: .(שלהן גדול משלנו) "Theirs are greater than ours"

Boyarin, Unheroic Conduct., pp. 86-107.; Boyarin, “Hellenism in Jewish Babylonia.”; Daniel Boyarin, Socrates and the Fat Rabbis, 1st ed. (University Of Chicago Press, 2009)., pp. 174-186.

275 In his 1997 book Unheroic Conduct: The Rise of Heterosexuality and the Invention of the Jewish Man, pp. 86-107, Boyarin sticks with his former reading but places added emphasis on the psychic revelation of the rabbis misunderstanding. The rabbis misunderstood the noblewoman because of the gender position by which they perceive themselves versus the surrounding Roman culture in which they live. Are rabbis feminine or masculine? What is femininity and masculinity for each of these opposing cultures? How secure is each culture with its own gender definitions?

276 See footnote 252. 109

Reading the Fat Rabbis Story in its Larger Baba Metzia Context

The reading strategies of Rashi, Pisentz, and Boyarin, in this instance, focus on a particular passage in the Balvi as an independent literary unit. However, they do not take into account how the passage interacts with its extended context. I would like to explore two linguistic markers in this passage that connect it first to the larger context in which it appears and then to the Bavli as a whole. It is my contention that the Bavli reader discussed earlier, the oral reader, sees the Bavli as if from the center of the inside of a ball and moves around through the text in a non-linear manner. This reader is particularly attuned to how associations of rare words or phrases create networks of meaning that might run counter to the meaning as understood when the text is viewed in a linear fashion. The first linguistic marker is the cryptic phrase "theirs are greater than ours" This phrase, which was the fat rabbis' initial response to the .(שלהן גדול משלנו) noblewoman's taunts, does not appear in any other context in the Bavli. However, the does appear one ,(שלנו גדול משלהם) "opposite formulation, "ours are greater than theirs other time. Interestingly enough, it appears on the following page, Baba Metzia 84b, in the second half of the longer biographical narrative dealing with Rabbi Elazar's illness and subsequent marital issues—what we'll call "the separation story." To review, When Rabbi Elazar's wife realizes that his illness was self-inflicted she is furious because it was she who had been paying his medical bills from her father's estate. So she leaves him and returns to her father's house. Subsequently, Rabbi Elazar happens into a fortune. When his daughter comes to check up on him he sends her back to his wife bearing a message in what becomes a successful attempt to lure her back. The message he sent with his meaning, we now have ,(שלנו גדול משלהם) "daughter was: "ours are greater than theirs more money than your father's family. And his wife returns. in the fat (שלהן גדול משלנו) "The use of the phrase "theirs are greater than ours rabbis story is an obvious verbal echo of the opposite phrase, "ours are greater than .as used in the separation story. The implications are twofold ,(שלנו גדול משלהם) "theirs First, it reminds the reader that Rabbi Elazar and his wife were living apart. This lends credence to the noblewoman's suspicion about the legitimacy of their children. Rabbi Elazar's troubled relationship with his wife, marked by time apart, is recalled. Second, in the (שלנו גדול משלהם) "and more profoundly, if the words "ours are greater than theirs separation story are code for "reason for reconciliation" then the opposite formulation in the fat rabbis story is code for "reason (שלהן גדול משלנו) "theirs are greater than ours" for separation." The noblewoman had opened the dialogue implying that the enormous Rabbi Elazar could not satisfy his wife— either because he could not actually have sex with her or because he was grotesquely obese. When Rabbi Elazar answers the he actually (שלהן גדול משלנו) "noblewoman's taunt with "theirs are greater than ours greatly weakens his position by virtue of the connotation drawn from his own words, known from the later separation story. Despite the fact that the rhetorical structure of the fat rabbis story has the rabbis as besting the noblewoman at a battle of wits—by virtue of 110

the fact that that they had the last word—the non-linear reader is left wondering who truly bested whom. 277

Reading Baba Metzia With an Echo from Yevamot

The second linguistic marker is the Harpanian jug, which was used to describe Rav Papa's organ in the final line of the passage. The reader of Baba Metzia 84a is struck at the end of the list of the sizes of (הרפנאי) by the appearance of the word Harpania various rabbis' organs. Every other organ size is presented in terms of qab and therefore the Harpanian jug seems a bit odd and out of place. The Bavli reader knows from Shabbat 127a that a Harpanian jug is smaller than other jugs but the image of "smaller"— as this list seems to detail rabbis in descending order of size and chronology— could just as easily have been conveyed by continuing the list symmetrically with "Rav Papa's own organ was one qab." The appearance of the word Harpania in this passage has a much more dramatic effect for the reader. Harpania is a Babylonian town that is only 278 mentioned in a handful of other contexts in the Bavli. 277F The Bavli reader naturally forms a composite of the nature of this town and the image it conjures when making its sparing appearances within a particular text. For the Bavli reader, Harpania is a town that represents only one thing in particular. The end of the first chapter of tractate Yevamot consists of a series of loosely connected short passages that discuss the tainted

277 This argument certainly works better according to the reading that understands that the noblewoman's initial taunt was meant to imply that they could not prevent their wives from straying.

278 In three of those instances an object unique to that town is described: Harpanian fruits (Eruvin 19a); Harpanian jugs (Shabbat 127a); [funeral shrouds of the] dead [people] of Harpania (Sanhedrin 48b.) Here Harpania is described as the only place where funeral shrouds would be woven only after a person dies. Rashi explains that the reason for this is that the people of Harpania were very poor and therefore only after a person died would a public collection be taken up to raise funds to weave the deceased a shroud. However, we see from the Eruvin 19a and Avodah Zarah 74b, Harpania was actually a town that had desirable produce and certainly had a strong export economy. It would make more sense to explain this practice as stemming not from the poverty of the people of the town but rather from the fact that the people of this town did not have family members who would provide for the funeral arrangements as will become clear from Yevamot 17a. Avodah Zarah 74b describes how Rava would protect his empty casks from contamination when sending them to Harpania to be filled with wine. Finally, in one instance a person is נהר פניא from Harpania) (Eruvin 59b). It should be noted that a place called) הרפנאה given the appellation (the Pania River) is also mentioned a couple of times in the Bavli. This would probably mean a town named after the Pania River or perhaps a town located where the river turns or empties— similar to the Pema River or Mouth of the River) that will be discussed later on . It is however) נהר פמא or פום נהרא town If . נהר פניא Gittin 65b talks about wine from .הרפניא is simply a corruption of נהר פניא quite possible that .then this would work well with the Avodah Zarah 74b source הרפניא is indeed a corruption of נהר פניא נהר Alfasi to Nedarim 55a has) . נהר פניא Nedarim 55a has a large order of produce being requested from in this instance, however if Alfasi's version is the one that is corrupt it can be explained by the close פקוד proximity of a similar word in his text.) 111

genealogical makeup of the populace of various cities. Toward the close of this chapter (Yevamot 17a) a Baraita folk-etymologizes the town name Harpania.

What is [the etymology of the word] Harpania? Rabbi Zeira said: A mountain where all [people who are of suspect genealogy] turn to [to find wives.]279 It was taught in a Baraita: Whoever does not recognize his family or tribe was turned away to there.

Therefore, Harpania, as it is defined at Yevamot 17a, brings to mind a place where people do not know who their fathers are. Its appearance following the story of the fat rabbis creates an echo in the mind of the reader that enforces the original claim of The result is that although .(בניכם אינם שלכם) "the noblewoman: "your sons are not yours on a rhetorical level the story had come to a close with the rabbis having defeated the noblewoman with their logic and wit, on a poetic and semiotic level, one that highlights the Bavli's use of words, the very conclusion of the story has been reopened a paragraph later. As the reader moves linearly beyond the fat rabbis story and forward through the page a voice reaches out from Yevamot 17a and questions the veracity of the story's conclusion. The appearance of the word "Harpania" leads the reader to wonder if these 280 rabbis were indeed the fathers of their wives' sons as the story had purported. 279F

I have elucidated this cryptic acrostic folk etymology according to Rashi. Although . הר שהכל פונין בו 279 the literal translation of this phrase would simply be "a mountain that all turn to" Rashi's reading derives from the more easily understood Baraita, that follows, which details a similar folk etymology. It is important to note that in a span of a few sentences this passage has already played on two meanings for the as well as provided a linguistic basis in the form of a folk etymology for גבר and the root כסף both the root the naming of a town that houses people of suspect genealogy.

Harpania) is not the only linguistic marker that connects Baba) הרפניא It should be noted that the word 280 Metzia 84 and Yevamot 17a. The Bavli often uses linguistic markers in groups that form networks of passages that are linked through the similarity of words and phrases shared among them. [For an example, see the sixth chapter of this dissertation.] The Bavli's discussion that immediately follows the Yevamot 17a passage [that is be presented in block quotes below] continues with a cause and effect list of various cities the genealogically disqualified of) פסולי דהרפניא משום פסולי דמשון :and the origin of their tainted bloodlines Harpania because of the genealogically disqualified of Mishon.) This is followed by an explanatory folk The large qab and) קבא רבא וקבא זוטא מיגנדר ואזיל לשאול ומשאול לתרמוד ומתרמוד למישון וממישון להרפניא saying the small qab roll down to the netherworld, and from the netherworld to Tarmod, and from Tarmod to Mishon, and from Mishon to Harpania.) A third Bavli passage completes the network of linguistic markers עשרה קבים that enforces the connection between Yevamot 17a and Baba Metzia 84. Kiddushin 49b has ten qab of brazenness came down to the world, nine of which were taken by) עזות ירדה לעולם תשעה נטלה מישן Mishon.) In this instance brazenness denotes bastards (see Kiddushin 70b and minor tractate Kallah where brazenness is a sign of disqualified genealogy and bastardry respectively, also see Kiddushin 71b where it is implied that all of the residents of Mishon are bastards.) Thus we have a network of passages that enforce the echo "your sons are not yours" through the linkage of the nine qab, Mishon, and bastards of Kiddushin 49b; the linkage between Harpania and Mishon as well as the large and small qab comparison of Yevamot 17a; and the nine qab, large and small qab comparison, as well as the use Harpania at Bab Metzia 84. Solomon Luria (1510-1573, Lithuania) in Ḥokhmat Shelomo to Baba Metzia 84a also associates the Kiddushin and Baba Metzia passages in an interesting manner. 112

The evidence of a historical association between Yevamot 17a and Baba Metzia 84a in the mind of Bavli readers is most glaring in the one manuscript of Baba Metzia 84a in which the word Harpania does not actually appear. This manuscript is Vatican 116-117. Instead of the size of Rav Papa's organ being compared to a "Harpanian jug," Nehar Pema is the ".(נהר פמא) Vatican 116-117 compares it to "a jug from Nehar Pema To understand the .(פום נהרא) same town that is alternately called Pum Nahara significance of this textual variant it is necessary to first examine a short story that appears merely a few lines from the site of the folk etymology for Harpania given at Yevamot 17a:

Rav Hamnuna sat before 'Ulla and was discussing a legal 281 And how !(גברא) tradition. ['Ulla]280F said: "What a man he would have been had he not been from (גברא) great 282 HarpaniaU U!"281F [Rav Hamnuna] was embarrassed 283 282F ['Ulla] said to him: "Where do you pay your.(איכסיף) 284 283F [Rav Hamnuna] said to him: "To"?(כסף) capitation tax 285 Pum Nahara."284F ['Ulla] said to him: "If that is the case, then you are from Pum Nahara."

In the story of Rav Hamnuna and 'Ulla—which I will call "the insult story"—Pum Nahara is the name of the town that 'Ulla substitutes for Harpania in order to placate Rav Hamnuna after insulting him when he said: "Imagine how great you would be had you not been from Harpania." Once 'Ulla sees that Rav Hamnuna was not in the least bit pleased by his backhanded compliment, 'Ulla appeases Rav Hamnuna by reminding him that since he paid his taxes to Pum Nahara he is therefore actually considered a resident of that city and not a resident of Harpania. With this story in mind, let us return to the single significant textual variant found in manuscripts of the fat rabbis story. Instead of the size of Rav Papa's organ being compared to a "Harpanian jug," the Vatican 116-117

281 'Ulla apparently was impressed with what Rav Hamnuna was saying.

Oxford . מה גברא ומה גברא אי לאו דהרפמיא מאתיה Vilna, Moscow 1017, Oxford 248, and Vatican 111 have 282 . מאן גברא ומאן גברה אי לאו דהרפמיא מאתיה Moscow 594 has . מה גבר...גובריה אי לאו דהרפמיא מאתיה has 20 Although these minor differences do not necessarily . מה גבר' ומה גברא Munich 95 and the Pesaro Print have effect how one would translate or interpret the sentence the slight textual differences do, however, highlight the relationship between the word for "man" and the word for "greatness/strength" in different ways. The in the Baba Metzia 84 passage and גבר corollary relationship between the different meanings of the root how these meanings are echoed in Yevamot 17a will be addressed later.

. כסיף in all of the manuscripts and prints except Munich 95 which has איכסיף 283

here meaning skull but also "to roll" is echoed later in the text ,גלגל ,The root of this word .כסף גולגלתא 284 .its Aramaic corollary ,מגנדר with the word

sometimes referred ,הרפניא and ,נהר פמא sometimes referred to as ,פום נהרא For the linguistic similarity of 285 (see for example the last word of the first chapter of Yevamot in the Pesaro Print) נהר פניא to as 113

manuscript compares it to a jug from Pum Nahara. The alternate reading presented in this divergent manuscript therefore maintains the association between the fat rabbis story and the insult story yet it reverses the implication of that association. Rather than use the linguistic marker Harpania to undermine the conclusion—and therefore, meaning— of the fat rabbis story, it uses the linguistic marker Pum Nahara to enforce the conclusion that the rabbis had indeed defeated the noblewoman and that their sons were indeed theirs. The divergent manuscript does not erase the negative association of Yevamot 17a, the site of the insult story, completely, but maintains that association and uses the linguistic marker Pum Nahara to elicit an opposite effect. The author of the alternate textual tradition represented in the divergent Vatican 116-117 manuscript has censored the text of the fat rabbis story but in doing so reinforces its association with the insult story located at Yevamot 17a. The importance of this alternate manuscript tradition for understanding exactly how late in history the process of Bavli operates is invaluable. If the activity of the Superstam, the crafter of the book rather than the sugya, is to be found in the subtle way that rare words connect seemingly unrelated Bavli passages in a meaningful manner, then this manuscript is an example of such an activity at a moment in time that is hundreds of years beyond the latest dating of the "Stam" proposed thus far. Although I have defined the Superstam's mode of operation as one that calls into question the conclusions of a sugya, we still see in this example the type of maneuver that bears the mark of the Superstam—a struggle for control over the meaning of the text that is fought out through the alteration of linguistic markers. These trigger words steer the reader to a seemingly unrelated sugya in a way that importantly impacts the process of making meaning in the original text being read. This operation is performed by readers who have been impacted by this aesthetic of the Bavli and continue to encourage its performance by rewriting the Bavli as they transmit it. The author of the divergent Vatican 116-117 manuscript tradition is certainly an example of such a reader.

What can we learn from the dominant manuscript tradition— the one that compares Rav Papa's organ to a Harpanian jug? When the fat rabbis story is removed from its literary and cultural context, its meaning is located in its rhetorical structure. Exactly what this meaning is can be the subject of much debate. However, once the story is read as part of the larger Baba Metzia story in which it appears and then as part of the Bavli, its meaning becomes destabilized. The story can no longer be frozen in time and assessed. Instead, its shape constantly shifts as the reader moves beyond the story to Baba Metzia 84b (the separation story) and Yevamot 17a (the insult story). It is precisely the fact that the word Harpania does not appear within the actual fat rabbis story, but immediately following it, that demonstrates how the Bavli operates on its reader through its overall composition and not through its disembodied parts. It is for this reason that the sugya unit is the wrong unit through which to assess what the Bavli means. It certainly is the wrong unit by which to assess how the Bavli means. This is but one small example of how a particular trigger word operates on the Bavli reader to activate a seemingly unrelated passage within the massive Bavli network. Yevamot 17a is certainly known to the reader of Baba Metzia 84—it, after all, appears 114

earlier in the book— but it would not be called into the meaning making process were it not for the presence of the rare word Harpania. The semiotic effect of rare words in the Bavli on its reader is reinforced by the Bavli's own self-referential system. The Bavli is a work of literature that constantly asks its reader to read it against itself. In this instance, "against itself" is to be taken quite literally. The fact that a reader of such a work of literature would make associations between passages marked by common rare language does not require much in the way of argument. However, once the prevalence of these kinds of linguistic associations between multiple Bavli passages is established, associations that operate on a semiotic level to undermine the rhetorical or logical function of the individual sugya, the Bavli begins to be seen as a work of literature defined by this activity. This in turn calls for a new understanding of how the Bavli came to be such a work of literature. Who is this Superstam that creates this type of text? How does this Superstam relate to the multi-Stams that Boyarin talks about? What role does this Superstam play in the dialogicity of the Bavli? The Bavli, when viewed on the level of the individual sugya, appears to be a work defined by logic or rhetoric. However, once the Bavli is viewed as a unified whole it appears to operate on the reader in a manner more akin to the way poetry works. While poetry says one thing with its sense of logic, it always says something else with the symbolic power carried by the individual words that it uses to express the idea that the words work against. This is manifestly evident when particular words throughout the Bavli create a network of meaning that works to undermine the apparent meaning, or historical evolution, of a particular sugya. Who put those words there? Which sugya contained the words first? When the network of words, found elsewhere in the Bavli, are not part of the evolution of the sugya itself there is no way of determining which came first. Therefore, one must conclude that the Bavli, if viewed as a book rather than a miscellany, was formed not by individual moments of concrete design but rather by myriads of moments of textual tweaking performed by generations of literary artisans. These craftsmen were affected by both the Bavli's semiotic reading strategy as applied to the Bible as well as the Bavli's own aesthetic representation of its ideas. In turn, they furthered the work of those who came before them and continued the process of Bavli, which is a quest for questions rather than answers.

115

Chapter 5:The Virgin and the Slaughtered Ox: Reading the Bavli Beyond the Halakhic Sugya

Virginity as Commodity286

Female virginity was a commodity in Ancient Israel.287 I mean that literally. A woman's first sex act was something that had a monetary value placed upon it. It was something that could be bought and sold. For Israelite culture, this fact is evident from the short Biblical passage concerning a man who seduces a virgin, found at Exodus 22:15-16. In such a case, the seducer must pay the former virgin a bride-price in the event that she decides to marry him (or, more accurately, if her father allows her to marry him.) The seducer apparently has no choice in the matter. If, however, her father refuses the match, then the seducer must pay the father the bride-price of a virgin. In ancient Israelite culture, virgins and non-virgins had different bride-prices. Since the father can no longer marry, or sell, off his daughter for the more valuable virgin bride-price, the seducer must therefore pay the father the money that the father has potentially lost.288 By the time of the Mishnah (ca. 200 CE), the value of virginity was no longer thought of in terms of bride-prices, the amount of money a man would pay to a virgin's father for his consent to their marriage. Instead, the value of virginity was expressed in terms of the marriage contract, the amount of money a man would be required to pay if

286 Ketubot is the second tractate in the Mishnaic order of "Women." The fact that this order is called Women rather than something like "Sexual Matters" informs the reader of the content, and more importantly, the perspective, presented in this order. The order of Women, like all Mishnaic orders, is presented by men who see women as one of many factors that a comprehensive ethno-cultural text must be legislate. And they treat women in the same manner as they would civil relationships, the calendar, and ritual observances, the main facets of rabbinic life that are detailed in the other Mishnaic orders. In my treatment of the content of the Talmudic passages concerning women I try to keep this perspective in mind. By presenting these texts from a perspective on women that either objectifies or enslaves them to the will of a dominant other I hope to offer a true portrayal of andro-centric rabbinic culture that is neither apologetic nor anachronistic. I hope that my reader keeps in mind that the attitude, tone, or style that I convey toward women while explicating Talmudic texts is not my own.

287 This is certainly also true today. However, what I want to emphasize is the fact that in Ancient Israel female virginity was valued at a fixed price. Therefore if a man seduced a virgin, he would be required to pay the virgin's father a fixed sum. Rape laws were conceived of in the same manner. (See Exodus 22:15- 16; and Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

288 I say "potentially" because there is always the possibility that the girl would have remained unmarried, or at least remain unmarried until she reaches adulthood. Once the girl reaches adulthood her father is no longer the beneficiary of her bride-price.

116

he chooses to divorce her, or if he dies before she does. The standard virgin marriage contract was double that of a non-virgin and commensurate with the Biblical virgin bride- price. This cultural shift in conceptualization of the value of virginity makes sense once we understand that the father is no longer in the picture. Once women started to marry at an older age, older than 12 years of age, they were no longer the property of their fathers and therefore owned their own virginity. The fact that the woman now owns this commodity has other ramifications for how its value is understood. According to the Biblical conceptualization of virginity, a man is willing to pay more money to marry a virgin and a virgin is therefore more valuable to her father. Virginity itself, according to the Biblical conception of it, does not necessarily have any value to the girl.289 The man can pay the father for the right to take the girl's virginity and then divorce her with no consequence. In the Mishnaic conception of virginity, it is the young woman who reaps the benefit of her own virginity. Since the value of the commodity is not realized at the inception of the marriage, but only at its termination, the woman's virginity actually acts to provide her with security. Since the man must pay the woman double if he chooses to divorce her, he is discouraged from doing so. This provides the woman with added marital, as well as fiscal, security. She can rest comfortably assured that she will be provided with food, clothing, and shelter for the duration of the marriage. This duration is stabilized by the penalty that the man would have to pay should he decide to terminate the marriage. If the man does choose to divorce her, or if he dies, then she is to receive a large settlement that will enable her to provide for herself as a single woman, no small task in the ancient world. Another aspect of the Biblical conception of virginity had become altered by the rabbinic period. Whereas the Bible seems to understand a woman's virgin state as something that is provable, the rabbis understood that it is not so simple. The Rabbis, legislating Biblical law for their own times, express the anxiety of this understanding in several different manners. In the previous chapter, I demonstrated how the appearance of a unique word leads the Bavli reader to understand that the Bavli is questioning its own stated conclusions. It does so by bringing a seemingly unrelated sugya into the conversation through a verbal echo, what I call a "trigger word." I argued that the very existence of linguistic markers unifying disparate sugyot within the Bavli raises serious doubts about the prevailing academic consensus that the sugya is authored by the Stam. For if the Stam authored the sugya, then the Stam would have control over how meaning is manufactured in that sugya. However, the existence of linguistic markers that reach beyond the sugya unit and that serve to call the sugya's meaning into question, demonstrates an authorial role to the force that unites the Bavli through the web of meaning fostered by these linguistic markers. I call this force the Superstam. The example I provided in the previous chapter was Aggadic in nature. I showed how one story's meaning changes when viewed alongside another story wherein the two stories are

289 That is, unless she reaches adulthood unmarried. In such a case she would be more desirable to a prospective husband if she were a virgin.

117

connected by a common linguistic marker. In this chapter, I expand the parameters and complexity of my theory by demonstrating that the exact same effect holds true for the Bavli's halakhic sugyot. Halakhic sugyot are far more complex than Bavli stories. I do not mean to say that it is the underlying meaning to be found in Halakhic sugyot that makes them more difficult to understand. Rather, I mean that in order to understand a halakhic sugya, one must first have access to much requisite background information. The uninitiated can read the biographical story of Rabbi El'azar the son of Rabbi Shimon and at least understand what has taken place in the story, even though this reader might be completely mystified as to what is at stake. Additionally, halakhic sugyot are not self- contained. They are necessarily dependent on other halakhic sugyot. They are therefore much more valuable for demonstrating the way that the Superstam works beyond the sugya unit. Classic Talmudic source criticism works to explain how a sugya developed, how it borrows and alters earlier sources, in a chronological manner. Source critical methodology can be used to explain the historical evolution of the sugya but it is deficient in explaining the evolution of the Bavli as a book. The creative force which I demonstrate is at work in the Bavli calls the positivism of that source critical school into question. The source critical school of academic Talmud study has yet to account for the activity of the Superstam. In providing the background information for the sugya I later treat, Ketubot 16a, I provide some of the materials that can be useful for a source critical analysis of virginity claims in the Bavli. I do so not to posit a chronology of the evolution of a rabbinic idea, but merely to demonstrate that the rabbis, in general, are struggling to come to terms with legislating a cultural heritage that they find to be unrealistic in real life circumstances. Put simply, how is it possible for a man to prove that his wife was not a virgin at the time of the consummation of their marriage? The first part of this chapter therefore aims to show that the rabbis had anxiety about the legislation of virginity claims. I draw from a variety of sources from the rabbinic corpus to paint this picture. The second part of this chapter provides the background information necessary for reading Ketubot 16a. In order to begin to read Ketubot 16a, which is the opening sugya of the second chapter of Ketubot, it is necessary to know most of what has taken place, textually and rhetorically, in the first chapter of Ketubot. Finally, in the third part of this chapter, I display how the rabbis' anxiety over legislating virginity claims is manifested in the exact same literary manner that was detailed in the previous chapter. The logic of the sugya at Ketubot 16a purports to say, or do, one thing yet the images conjured from other seemingly unrelated sugyot, connected by common linguistic markers, or trigger words, work to undermine the conclusion that the Bavli logically and rhetorically puts forth as its final word.

Virginity Claims in Ancient Jewish Texts: Why the Anxiety?

The first Mishnah of tractate Ketubot explains the reason why the wedding of a virgin woman is to take place on a Wednesday. Courts were in session on Mondays and 118

Thursdays. Therefore, if a man discovered that his newlywed wife was in fact not a virgin he would be able to immediately go to court on Thursday morning and put forth his claim.290 When the Biblical text discusses a claim of virginity it only does so in a very particular context. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 presents two scenarios, what the court is to do in both the case when the man who claimed the woman he married was not a virgin is proven to have told the truth and when she is proven to have lied. Verses 13-19 present the case where a man married a woman and claims that he discovered she was not a virgin. In this first scenario, the bride's father proves that his daughter had indeed been a virgin at the time of the consummation of the marriage and that the husband's claim was false. In this case, the bride's father is awarded 100 silver [coins]291 and the husband, furthermore, is punished292 and deprived of his right to ever divorce her. Verses 20-21 present the alternate scenario, where the husband's claim is found to be accurate and the woman is deemed to have not been a virgin at the time of their marriage. In this case, the woman is sentenced to death by stoning. Two aspects of this Biblical passage are striking to the modern reader. First, how would it be possible for the father to retroactively prove his daughter's virginity? Second, why would the fact that she was not a virgin warrant such a harsh penalty?293 The Bavli explains the second issue by elaborating on the Biblical case and differentiating between a woman who had lost her virginity before her betrothal and one who had done so afterwards.294 The Biblical case is merely referring to the latter.295 However, the case of

290 It would seem that according to this reason, virgin marriages should also take place on Sundays. The Gemara to this Mishnah explains the reason why virgins were not to marry on Sundays. the rabbis wanted to ensure that there would be at least three days of wedding preparations. Observance of the Sabbath would interfere with preparations for a Sunday wedding. (BT Ketubot 2a ff.)

The text merely states "100 silver." It is unclear how large each piece of silver was and . מאה כסף 291 .סלע whether or not it is coins that are referred to. The Rabbis interpret this amount as 100

...ויסרו אתו. וענשו אתו מאה כסף ונתנו לאבי הנערה כי :The Biblical passage at Deuteronomy 22:18-19 reads 292 and punish him, and they shall fine him a...) הוציא שם רע על בתולת ישראל ולו תהיה לאשה לא יוכל לשלחה כל ימיו. hundred weights of silver and give it to the young woman's father, for he put out a bad name for a virgin in Israel.) [Robert Alter's translation, [Robert Alter, The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with ,means that they admonish "ויסרו" Commentary (W. W. Norton & Company, 2004).] It is unclear whether chastise, or discipline him and whether this discipline is explained by what follows or is a separate punishment. There are opinions within the Talmud that see this term to refer to lashes. It seems that by Talmudic times it was universally accepted that the husband would receive lashes if found to be lying in a virginity claim. However there was some debate as the Biblical source for lashes in this case. (See footnote 310)

293 For source-critical explanation of this text, its Ancient Near Eastern counterparts, and its relationship to Biblical sex laws in general see Alexander Rofé, Deuteronomy: Issues and Interpretation (Continuum International Publishing Group, 2002)., pp. 169-187.

betrothal, this phase is alternatively called) ארוסין ,For the rabbis, marriage consists of two phases 294 wedding, or consummation of the marriage). Betrothal is not similar to our modern) נישואין and (קידושין conception of engagement. If a betrothed woman would sleep with someone other than her husband then she would be liable to the death penalty and in some cases she would even be liable to a more severe death 119

a woman who had already lost her virginity prior to her betrothal—that case to which the rabbis say the Biblical passage does not refer—is merely a civil matter and in such a case the woman's marriage contract is either reduced in value or completely annulled, depending on the exact nature of the case.296 Regarding the first issue, as to how exactly the father retroactively proves his daughter's virginity, the Bavli's silence is quite telling. Throughout the entire first chapter of Ketubot, even as every imaginable claim and counterclaim between a man and his wife regarding her virginity, or lack thereof, is discussed, the nature of the physical evidence for their claims is never addressed. The Biblical verses that deal with the issue of virginity claims, upon which the Bavli ostensibly builds its laws, details the father's counterclaim as follows:

And the father of the young woman, and her mother, take and bring out the tokens of virginity of the young woman to the elders of the city at the gate [of the city.] And the father of the young woman says to the elders: "I gave my daughter to this man and he hated her. And he put forth baseless charges saying 'I did not find your daughter [to have] tokens of virginity.' Yet, these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity!" And they spread out the garment penalty. (See Deuteronomy 22:22-24) It is for this reason that it matters whether or not this woman lost her virginity before or after her betrothal.

Originally, betrothal could be effected in one of three manners (Mishnah Kiddushin 1:1): (1) The man hands the woman money and pronounces one of a number of versions of a phrase that indicates that the money is meant to effect the betrothal, such as, "behold you are betrothed to me," and she accepts the money (See Kiddushin 6a for alternate phraseology); (2) The man gives the woman an object (for example, paper or potshard) containing such a phrase and she accepts (see Kiddushin 9a-b); (3) The couple have sexual intercourse while intending for the sex act to effect the betrothal. After the betrothal, in rabbinic .(תבעה) times, the woman would remain in her father's house until her husband solicited her for marriage Once the husband solicited her, she would continue to be supported by her father for a period of a year. During this period, the bride and groom would occupy themselves with preparations for the wedding. If one year lapsed and the wedding did not take place, then the husband was required to support his wife even wedding, or) נישואין though she is still living in her father's house. (Mishnah Ketubot 5:2) The ביאה canopy) or) חופה ,consummation of the marriage) phase of the marriage is effected in one of two ways (sex). The husband either brings the woman from her father's house to live under his roof or they have sex. It is unclear whether both requirements were necessary. It is also unclear whether a single sex act, for the completion of the) נישואין couple who decided to effect betrothal via sex, is sufficient to also effect the marriage). (See Kiddushin 10a-b) By the early third century, using a sex act to effect a betrothal had become outlawed by the rabbis and the rabbis would publicly flog anyone who continued this practice. (See Kiddushin 12b) It would make sense that this practice had been discontinued for some time before that period and the discussions of virginity claims in the Talmud seem to take this for granted. (See Mishnah Ketubot 1:5 for intimacy during the betrothal period and how it effects virginity claims.)

295 See for example Ketubot 11b.

296 The central discussion of this issue extends throughout the entire first chapter Ketubot and into the second chapter (2a-16a).

120

before the elders of the city. And the elders of that city take the man and they discipline him.

The spreading out of the garment before the elders of the city is a mode of publicly clearing the woman's name. This is a matter of great importance in this instance as the woman's reputation is the central driving force of this passage. In fact, when the rabbis discuss any laws related to this Biblical passage, they simply refer to the case by bringing about a bad name). It would seem that when the) מוציא שם רע the shorthand father declares, in the previous verse, "these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity" that he is referring to the garment. It is therefore of note that any discussion of this 'garment' is conspicuously absent from the first chapter of tractate Ketubot, a chapter dedicated to virginity claims. In fact, even when the opportunity for such a discussion 297 presents itself, the Bavli skirts the issue. When the Judean296F custom of appointing 298 friends297F to accompany the bride and groom into the bridal chamber is discussed, it is only Rashi who posits that this custom served to curtail the possible misappropriation of 299 the garment containing proof of blood.298F

Ketubot 46a: Garment Really Means Witnesses

300 When the Bavli finally, in a later chapter,299F does broach the subject of the nature of the evidence that the father brings in support of his counterclaim it does so in a manner that performs substantial violence to the Biblical text. Although my argument in this chapter centers on the absence of such discussion over the course of the first 30 (or 15 301 double-sided)300F pages of the tractate, and the manner in which two strange words found at the close of that lengthy discussion work to undermine the entire discussion, it is nonetheless quite interesting to see how the Bavli deals with this "garment" when it

297 Contrasted to Galilean custom not to do so.

שושבינין 298

,examine) פישפוש The Tosefta 1:5 and the Yerushalmi (Palestinian Talmud) 2b introduce the concept of 299 investigate), which although vague (more so in the Tosefta, but certainly vague enough in both sources) can be read according to Rashi's idea.

300 Ketubot 46a (cited in text below)

daf). It is standard to reference pages in the Talmud by daf followed) דף A double-sided page is called a 301 by side (whether a or b). Additionally, all tractates of the Talmud begin on page 2a. So, for example, the 29th page of a tractate would be 16a and the 30th page would be 16b.

121

finally does make its only appearance nearly 100 (or 50 double-sided) pages into the chapter. The Bavli at Ketubot 46a quotes a Baraita:302

.i.e) ?(כיצד הוצאת שם רע) How is a bad name brought about What is the nature of the case discussed in aforementioned 303 Biblical passage?)302F [The husband] came to court and 304 declared "[I], so and so,303F did not find your daughter [to have] tokens of virginity. "If there are witnesses that she 305 had illicit sex while betrothed304F to him [then] her marriage 306 contract is 100305F (rather than the marriage contract of 307 200306F designated for virgins)."

The Bavli interjects the Baraita at this point and asks:

302 A synopsis of all of the extant Bavli manuscripts for Ketubot 46a as well as the Soncino and Vilna prints is provided in Appendix O.

literally "how", to inquire about the details of a ,כיצד It is common in Tannaitic literature to use the term 303 as ,כיצד (.legal case-type discussed in the Bible. (See for example, the opening words to tractate Makkot ,Moses Maimonides ,כאי זה צד or, according to Maimonides) כי איזה צד how," is an idiomatic contraction of" Commentary to the Mishnah: Tractate Berakhot (Fez, Morocco, 1168), 6:1) and therefore carries the weight of the its initial meaning which when expanded could be literally translated as "like which [logical] side, border, or parameter?" This would figuratively translate to "what are the parameters of the case?" which means "the ",הצד השוה שבהן" is צד Another idiomatic Talmudic phrase that incorporates the word) .כיצד common denominator") See MS Vatican 487 which, to some extent, preserves an expanded form of written in the hand of the original copyist and the כאיזה Vatican 487 has, in this instance, only the word .inserted above and before the next word in the hand of another צד word

in most of the MSS. The syntax of this sentence is בא לבית דין ואמר פלוני לא מצאתי... This sentence reads 304 the one declaring? Or is an unnamed פלוני Is .פלוני somewhat unclear as far as where to place the word As a result this ?פלוני party, understood to be the husband, declaring something starting with the word sentence can alternatively be translated "So and so came to court and declared 'I did not find..." The word is absent in both MS Munich 95 and MS Vatican 130. I chose to translate the sentence as I did פלוני is a somewhat technical term and it would seem more likely that the author of this פלוני because the word Baraita would use it to denote technical court language rather than as a designation for the actor in this instance. Such a designation would be unnecessary and an unnamed actor would more likely be presented .such as is the case in MS Munich 95 and MS Vatican 130 פלוני without the word

305 Literally "under him." I translate this as "betrothed" here because the punishment of stoning only applies to a betrothed virgin woman and not a married woman. A married woman's punishment in a such a case would either be death by strangulation (See Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:4; 7:9; and 11:1) or, in the case of a priest's daughter, by burning (See Mishnah Sanhedrin 9:1).

.Zuz was a type of ancient silver coin .זוזין 100 306

307 See previous footnote.

122

If there are witnesses that she had illicit sex while betrothed to him [then] her marriage contract is 100?! She is liable to death by stoning!

The Bavli rereads this section of the Baraita308 and then continues:

This is what [the Baraita] is saying: If there are witnesses that she had illicit sex while betrothed to him [then she is liable to death by] stoning; If she had illicit sex from the beginning (i.e. before their betrothal) [then] her marriage contract is 100. If it is discovered that the [husband's] 309 allegations were false,308F then [the husband] receives 310 311 type of silver coin)310F) סלע lashes309F and must pay 100 312 whether he had sex [with her] or not.311F Rabbi Eli'ezer the 313 son of Ya'akov says: These things only apply312F in a case where he had sex [with her.]

here it is saying") is an") הכי קאמר There is scholarly dispute as to whether the appearance of term 308 attempt to establish a correct version of the actual text of a Tannaitic source or simply an attempt to elucidate it. See, in this regard, J. N Epstein, Mavo Le-Nusaḥ Ha-Mishnah: Nusaḥ Ha-Mishnah Ṿe- Gilgulaṿ Lemi-Yeme Ha-Amora'im Ha-Rishonim Ṿe-'ad Defuse Yom-Ṭov Lipman Heler, vol. 1, 2 vols. (Jerusalem, 1948), pp. 645-670.

309 Literally "that the 'bad name' was not a 'bad name.'"

ויסרו This law is discussed earlier in the fourth chapter of Ketubot (45b-46a) and derives from the words 310 and they discipline him) found in Deuteronomy 22:18 regarding what is done to the man after the) אתו father has proven his daughter's innocence. Rabbi Abbahu demonstrates how a series of word usages in this passage with the injunction for lashes found in Deuteronomy ויסרו within the Bible connect the word 25:2 via the laws of the rebellious son in Deuteronomy 21:18. However, the association of the Biblical [which means something like "admonish" or "chastise" (BDB), with the [Palestinian ,יסר Hebrew word which means to bind (BDB) and the rabbinic Hebrew meaning of the root as "to cause to יסר Aramaic word suffer" (Sokoloff, who gives no etymology for this word in his entry) certainly informs Rabbi Abbahu's semiotic endeavor. Although it is quite possible that all of these meanings are merely variations of the same idea, the particular ways in which the word root is used in Biblical Hebrew, rabbinic Hebrew, and Palestinian Aramaic are quite different from each other. [Francis Brown, S R Driver, and Charles A Briggs, Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, 8th ed. (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 2004), p. 415. BDB differentiates between the meaning of the Aramaic word and its usage in the Talmud.); Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period (JHU Press, 2002), pp. 239-240 and 243.]

marriage contract previously זוז should not to be confused with the 100 ,סלע This amount, 100 311 one hundred silver) that appears as the proscribed) מאה כסף represents the nondescript סלע mentioned. 100 . זוזין is equal to 8 סלע penalty in the Biblical verse (Deuteronomy 22:19). A

312 Literally: or whether he did not have sex.

313 Literally: were only said

123

The Talmud now analyzes the two opposing opinions presented in the Baraita, Rabbi Eli'ezer the son of Ya'akov (hereafter referred to as REB"Y) and the anonymous, and therefore supposed, majority opinion that he disputes. The Talmud will later refer to this anonymous majority opinion as "The Rabbis."314 The debate between REB"Y and “The Rabbis” hinges solely on whether or not the Biblical case where the husband's allegations are found to be false refers only to a situation where the husband actually had sex with the wife he claims was not a virgin. Note how the 'evidence' has shifted from the Biblical 'garment' to the rabbinic 'witnesses.'315 The Talmud will point to six words, or phrases, from the Biblical passage in an attempt to prove whether it is the opinion of REB"Y or that of “The Rabbis” that is the correct one. The Biblical passage from where these quotes are drawn, Deuteronomy 22:13-17, partially quoted above, reads as follows:

If a man takes a woman and comes to her and hates her. And puts forth baseless charges316 against her; and puts out a bad name for her; and says "I took this woman and I came close to her and I did not find her to have tokens of virginity. And the father of the young woman, and her mother, take and bring out the tokens of virginity of the young woman to the elders of the city at the gate [of the city.] And the father of the young woman says to the elders: "I gave my daughter to this man and he hated her. And he put forth baseless charges saying 'I did not find your daughter [to have] tokens of virginity.' Yet, these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity!" And they spread out the garment before the elders of the city.

It is quite apparent according to the plain meaning of the Biblical passage that the husband did indeed have sex with his wife. Not only does the language used in phrases like "comes to her"317

I use the capitalized "The Rabbis." When discussing the רבנן When discussing the opinion attributed to 314 overall group representing rabbinic thought in rabbinic Literature I use the lower case "the rabbis." In a number of instances I refer to "the rabbis" at the start of a sentence. In such cases "the rabbis" will appear as "The Rabbis" even though "the rabbis" is meant. The context in those cases will serve a guide as to which of the two I am referring.

I did not find her to have tokens of) ולא מצאתי לה בתולים It is interesting that Targum Yonatan translates 315 Both . עד is equivalent to the Hebrew word סהדא The Aramaic word .ולא אשכחית לה סהידוון virginity) as mean "witness" or "evidence." This dual meaning is perhaps what originally opened the possibility for the rabbis to transfer the meaning of the evidence of the Biblical text from "garment" to "witness."

316 Literally: Wantonness of words

כִּ י י ִקַּ ח אִ ישׁ come") is used to denote sex. For example: Deuteronomy 22:13 has") בוא The Biblical root 317 Should a man take a woman, and come to bed with her and hate her); or Dueteronomy) אִ שָּׁ ה וּבָ א אֵ לֶ יהָ וּשְׂ נֵאָ הּ כִּי יֵשְׁבוּ אַחִ ים יַחְדָּו וּמֵת אַחַד מֵהֶם וּבֵן אֵין לוֹ �א תִהְיֶה אֵשֶׁת הַמֵּת הַחוּצָה לְאִישׁ זָר יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ וּלְקָחָהּ לוֹ לְ אִ שָּׁ ה וְ י ִבְּ מָ הּ ,25:5 (Should brothers dwell together and one of them die and have no son, the wife of the dead man shall not 124

father's use of the garment as a counterclaim would make absolutely no sense had the man not slept with his wife. What would a bloodstained garment prove had he not had sex with her other than the fact that bloodstained garments aren't reliable in virginity claims? Therefore it seems that REB"Y would certainly have the upper hand in his debate with The Rabbis. What follows the Baraita at Ketubot 46a is a formulaic routine put forth in the anonymous voice of the Bavli that systematically points to how The Rabbis deal with each Biblical word or phrase that seems to support REB"Y's opinion. Four textual instances that seemingly support the opinion of REB"Y will be presented. In the first three cases, the anonymous voice of the Bavli will defend the opinion of The Rabbis and in the final case a named Amora will address the issue.

1) It is correct according to REB"Y; that is why it is written "and comes to her" [and] "I came close to her". However according to The Rabbis what [is the meaning of] "and comes to her" and "I came close to her"?

"and comes to her": with "baseless[ness]"; and "I came close to her": with "words."318

2) It is correct according to REB"Y; that is why it is written "I did not find your daughter [to have] tokens of virginity." However according to The Rabbis what [is the meaning of] "I did not find your daughter [to have] tokens of virginity"?

319 of your daughter’s" (כשרי) I did not find" certifiers318F" virginity."

3) It is correct according to REB"Y; that is why it is written "these are and the "I cametokens close of my to daughter'sher" certainly virginity." imply sexual However intercourse, the

become wife outside to a stranger. Her brother-in-law shall come to bed with her and take her to him as wife, and carry out a brother-in-law's duty toward her.) [Translations, Alter, The Five Books of Moses, pp. .ביאה and 1001, respectively.] Additionally, the word for sexual intercourse in rabbinic Hebrew is 987

as denoting sex but rather that (ובא אליה) "The Rabbis do not here interpret the words "and comes to her 318 carries this בא בעלילות the husband initially approached the relationship with trickery or pretext. The phrase Haman, the) המן הרשע בעלילה גדולה בא על ישראל :connotation. See, for example, Esther Rabbah 7:13 wicked, acted with great trickery in dealing with Israel.) The Midrash goes on to explain Hama's trickery: "Haman said to Xerxes, 'The gods of these people hate fornication. Set up whores for them, and make a is used שבאו בעלילה party for them, and make a decree that they all must attend.'" Also, see how the phrase earlier in the Esther Rabbah passage.

means "what makes fit" or "what makes right." In this case, it is witnesses who establish, or כשרי 319 certify, her virginity status.

125

according to The Rabbis what [is the meaning of] "yet, these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity"?

320 of my daughter's" (כשרי) Yet, these are" certifiers319F" virginity"?

4) It is correct according to REB"Y; that is why it is written "and they spread out the garment." However according to The Rabbis what [is the meaning of] "and they spread out ?"(השמלה ופרשו) the garment

321 F320 the charges he (פרשו) Rabbi Abbahu said: They explain 322 321F.(מה Uש Uשם U Uלה) put forth against her

323 As it is taught in Baraita:322F "and they spread out the garment": This teaches that [the] witnesses of 324 each323F [party] come and clarify the matter like a new garment. REB"Y says: The words are to be taken literally: an actual garment.

The anonymous voice of the Bavli has defended The Rabbis against any textual evidence brought in support of REB"Y by violently rereading each textual instance that seems to overwhelmingly support the opinion of REB"Y. Rabbi Abbahu replaces the anonymous voice of the Bavli in the fourth, and final, segment. He uses a clever

320 The textual basis for the Sages' reading of the Biblical verse in this manner is unclear.

321 This is a play on "and they spread." "To explain" and "to spread" are spelled the same way in Hebrew However, in Hebrew, the letters shin and sin are neither etymologically related in any way nor are .(פרש) they pronounced at all in the say way. They merely look the same and a diacritic mark is used to is pronounced u-parshu; "And (ופרשׁו) "differentiate between them in vocalized texts. "And they explain is pronounced u-parsu. Rabbi Abbahu practices all kinds of language and semiotic (ופרשׂו) "they spread games throughout this section of Ketubot. (In a forthcoming commentary to the fourth chapter of Ketubot, Ari Tuchman treats Rabbi Abbahu's semiotic methodology and in what manner it differs from other similar rabbinic hermeneutics.)

322 Note that Rabbi Abbahu is involved in three different semiotic games in this sugya. See footnote 310 above as well as the similar type of interpretive maneuver offered by Rabbi Abbahu at Ketubot 45b around 17 lines from the bottom (in the Vilna edition.)

323 It is unclear to the reader whether this Baraita is brought as a continuation of Rabbi Abbahu's statement or in the anonymous voice of the Bavli.

324 Literally: "The witnesses of this one and the witnesses of this one come"

126

wordplay325 that essentially erases the actual 'garment' from the Biblical text. This 'garment' no longer exists. The Baraita that follows implies that this whole discussion was merely an exercise, one used to flesh out a pre-existing debate: Should this Biblical passage be read literally or not? In fact, if we return to the earlier Baraita, where REB"Y and the anonymous Rabbis debate over whether or not the parties in the Biblical passage had actually had sex, the issue of whether or not the Biblical passage should be read literally is also at play. That earlier Baraita had already replaced the Biblical 'garment' with rabbinic 'witnesses.'326

Pre-Bavli Conceptions of the Garment: An Elaborate Case of Witnesses

A survey of rabbinic literature that pre-dates the Bavli demonstrates that the debate as to whether or not to read this Biblical passage literally is not a Babylonian invention. The Mekhilta327 has Rabbi Ishmael supplying a non-literal reading of "and they spread the garment" in the context of a discussion of two other Biblical verses that he reads non-literally. Rabbi Ishmael tersely explains "'And they spread the garment': They clarify the words like a garment." Ironically, the nature of this simile is far from clear.328 The Sifre329 provides an expanded version of the Mekhilta330:

which means "And he put forth baseless ,ושם לה עלילת דברים Deuteronomy 22:14 opens with the phrase 325 (שמלה) "and he put forth) contain the letters for "garment) ושם לה ,charges against her." The words consecutively.

326 David Weiss Halivni explains that these two Baraitot represent two separate opinions found in earlier sources, that of Rabbi Ishmael and that of Rabbi ʿAkiva (detailed below.) The Bavli has conflated these two separate opinions into one that is represented by the anonymous Rabbis in the Bavli text. See David Weiss Halivni, Sources and Traditions: A Source Critical Commentary on Seder Nashim (Tel Aviv: Hŵṣaʾat Dbiyr, 1968). pp. 186-189, where Halivni explains the nuances of the two opinions in their earlier sources.

327 Nezikin 13

328 To be fair, Rabbi Ishmael is commenting on a different verse and then subsequently says that his non- .to two other verses that are explained non-literally (כיוצא בו) literal interpretation of that verse is similar He therefore seems to refer to a fuller text that the reader is supposedly aware of and merely seems to be reminding the reader of that interpretation found elsewhere.

329 Piska 237:17

330 This is not to say that one of these texts predates the other. Rather, the Mekhilta text appears in a context of one of the other verses that Rabbi Ishmael interprets non-literally and the Sifre comments on this actual verse.

127

'And they spread the garment': They shall clarify the words 331 like a garment. This is one of the instances330F where Rabbi 332 331F....(במשל) Ishmael would explicate the Bible allegorically Rabbi Akiva says: When it states 'And they spread the garment before the elders of the city' [it means] the a particular) זוממים husband's witnesses are found to be 333 category of false witnesses).332F 'And they spread the garment' [means] that the witnesses of each party shall 334 come before the elders of the city and present their cases.333F REB"Y says: The words [of the Biblical passage] are to be taken literally.

The Sifre has a named Tanna as the opponent of REB"Y in the dispute as to how exactly to interpret 'and they spread the garment.' Rabbi Akiva here has not only bought into the concept that the 'evidence' in the Biblical passage actually refers to 'witnesses' but zomemim, deliberate or plotting) זוממים ,he deems them to be a special kind of witness witnesses). According to rabbinic law, when a set of witnesses contradict another set of witnesses they simply cancel out each other's testimonies. Both testimonies are stricken from the record and the status quo is maintained as if neither set of witnesses had ever עדים זוממים testified. There is one exception to this rule. This exception is the case of (zomemim, deliberate or plotting witnesses). when the witnesses differ as to the (הכחשה) Testimony is deemed contradictory details of the case: One set of witnesses say that A killed B; and one set of witnesses say that C killed B. In such a case, neither A nor C is found guilty because the witnesses contradict each other and both testimonies are stricken from the record. However, in a case where one set of witnesses comes forward and claims that A killed B and then a

This sentence can alternately be translated: "This is one of the [group of] words from .זו אחד מן הדברים 331 the Bible that Rabbi Ishmael would explicate allegorically.

mashal)is a word that can be translated literally as “likeness.” Scholars have debated as to the exact) משל 332 connotation of this word in the rabbinic context, whether it refers to parable, allegory, fable, metaphor, or some other metonymic or synecdochal signifying system. [See David Stern, “Rhetoric and Midrash: The has many meanings and משל Case of the Mashal,” Prooftexts 1, no. 3 (1981): 261-291.] In truth the word is simply the difference between משל ,the context itself should suffice to define the term. In this instance what the text states and how Rabbi Ishmael reads the text. A comparison of all three Biblical instances that משל in this Sifre passage would lead to a better understanding of what exactly במשל Rabbi Ishmael reads means to the author of the Sifre, or, at the very least, this paragraph within the Sifre. In my presentation of this Sifre text, I have elided the two other examples given. From a source critical standpoint, it seems that the extra examples are merely an insertion into the body of this paragraph of the Sifre. The evidence for this is the fact that the two examples are followed by this same 'and they spread the garment' example. It therefore seems like the three examples are supplied parenthetically from a borrowed standalone source.

are a particular kind of false witness, the exact nature of which will be (עדים זוממים) zomemim witnesses 333 addressed at length in my explication of this passage and the next.

יבואו עדיו של זה ועדיו של זה ויאמרו דבריהם לפני זקני העיר 334

128

second set of witnesses comes forward and declares that, although they have no knowledge of the murder, they do know that the first set of witnesses are liars. This is because they happen to have been with that set of witnesses at the time of the murder in a .(zomemim) זוממים different city. In such an instance, the first set of witnesses is deemed zomemim) witnesses is an exceptional case of contradictory testimony) זוממים The case of and in such a case the testimonies do not cancel each other out. Rather, the second set of zomemim), is given) זוממים witnesses is believed and the lying first set of witnesses, the the punishment that they attempted to bring upon the defendant. In this particular example, where the witnesses were found to falsely accuse A of murdering B, the witnesses would get the death penalty because they had attempted to bring the death penalty upon A. zomemim) witnesses in the Sifre text is quite) זוממים The introduction of zomemim) is itself an apparent rabbinic invention that) זוממים interesting. The case of 335 radically rereads a Biblical passage.334F So here we have Rabbi Akiva doing double violence to the Biblical passage, further erasing the Biblical evidence, the 'garment', and replacing it not only with witnesses to an act of adultery but witnesses who disprove those witnesses. The second set of witnesses disprove the first set by claiming that the witnesses to the adultery must have been lying since they were, in fact, in a different city at the time of the alleged adultery. It would appear that Rabbi Akiva would also agree with the anonymous Rabbis of the first Baraita who did not necessitate an act of sex in claim (where the husband claimed that his wife had not been a מוציא שם רע the case of a 336 virgin at the time of their marriage).335F 337 The Yerushalmi336F takes it one step further. [The Yerushalmi's treatment of the 3rd Mishnah of the 4th chapter of tractate Ketubot, the same Mishnah dealt with in the aforementioned discussion of Bavli 46a, consists primarily of a list of short exegeses, in rabbinic Hebrew, of verses 13, 14, 19 and 21 of the Deuteronomy 22. Initially, this discussion is only intermittently interrupted by an anonymous voice or named Amora. Later, as the discussion continues, the anonymous voice as well as named Amoraim begin to make more frequent appearances and textual exegesis begins to all but disappear.]

רמז...מן " See Makkot 2b: "How do we know zomemim from the torah?" The appearance of the phrase 335 marks instances of rabbinic invention. See Aharon Shemesh's treatment of this phrase in relation to "התורה מסורות הלכה ופירוש המשותפות למגילות מדבר יהודה ולספרות “ ,the laws of ritual slaughter in Aharon Shemesh in ofnat Paʻneaḥ: Meḥḳere Lashon Mugashim Le-Elishaʻ Ḳimron Bi-Melot Lo Shishim Ṿe-Ḥamesh ”,חז"ל Shanah (Beʼer Shevaʻ: Hotsaʼat ha-sefarim shel Universiṭat Ben-Guryon ba-Negev, 2009), 383-394.

stand for the entire Biblical מוציא שם רע Literally: "put out a bad name." In the Talmud, the words 336 section that deals with the case of a man who claims that his wife was not a virgin at the time he married her.

337 (Palestinian Talmud) Ketubot 26a (28c in editio princeps pagination).

129

"And I came close to her and I did not find her to have tokens of virginity." — And [are we not] worried [that] perhaps he found [evidence of blood] and destroyed it?

[It is a case] where the husband brought witnesses that she had illicit sex while still in her father's house.338

"Yet, these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity!" — And [are we not] worried [that] perhaps it is the blood of a bird?

[It is a case] where the father brought witnesses to make the .(להזים עידי הבעל) husband's witnesses zomemim

Rabbi Yosi the son of Rabbi Bôn stated: This [Biblical] passage (i.e. Deuteronomy 22:13-21) contains: witnesses; [a second set of witnesses] who make [the first set of [and [a third set of witnesses ;(זוממיהן) witnesses] zomemim זוממי ) who make the [second set of witnesses] zomemim i.e.] The husband states: "Here are witnesses] .(זוממיהן that she had illicit sex while in her father's house." Then, the father brings witnesses to make the husband's witnesses Finally, the husband brings .(להזים עידי הבעל) zomemim להזים ) witnesses to make the father's witnesses zomemim 339 338F...(עידי האב

A Baraita teaches: Rabbi Eli'ezer the son of Yaakov says: "Let the words be said (interpreted) as they are written (i.e. literally)."

What [does Rabbi Eli'ezer the son of Yaakov] mean [when he says,] "Let the words be said (interpreted) as they are written"?

Rabbi Yosi the son of Rabbi Bôn stated: Really [the husband] is not liable [to be punished for bringing about a

338 Ostensibly, after her betrothal. In rabbinic times a man would betroth a virgin and she would remain in for marriage (תבעה) her father's house under his support indefinitely. At some point the man solicits her ,From the point of the solicitation he has one year (or 30 days, if she is a widow,) to marry her .(נישואין) after which point, if he does not consummate the marriage, he is responsible to support her. (Mishnah Ketubot 5:2) (See Maimonides Hilkhot Ishut 10:17).

339 I've elided the text here. The missing text, basically, recapitulates the Sifre.

130

bad name] until he enters, has sex, makes a virginity claim, and spreads out the sheet. Spreading out the sheet is not the end of the matter, rather, only until they clarify the words like a sheet.

It would seem that a number of factors led the rabbis, with the exception of where the) מוציא שם רע REB"Y, to move away from reading the Biblical passage of husband claimed that his wife had not been a virgin at the time of their marriage) literally. The driving force is to be found within the Biblical text itself. However, other social and legal factors work in concert with the Biblical text to eventually lead rabbis zomemim) witnesses. Whereas the) זוממים like Rabbi Akiva to introduce the concept of where the husband claimed that his wife) מוציא שם רע first half of the Biblical passage of had not been a virgin at the time of their marriage) deals with a case where the husband was found to be lying, the second half of that passage (Deuteronomy 22:20-21) deals with a scenario where the woman is indeed found to be guilty of non-virginity and sentenced to death.

And if the matter is true, the woman was not found to have 340 tokens of virginity, [and]339F they take the young woman out to the doorway of her father's house and the men of her city stone her with stones. And she dies. For she has done a disgraceful thing by Israel['s standard], to play the slut 341 [while] in her father's house. And you shall expurgate340F the evil from your midst.

Several problems present themselves in this second scenario — where the husband is found to be true in his allegations that his wife was not a virgin — that did not exist in the first Biblical scenario where he was found to be a liar. Contrastingly, the Biblical verses quoted above (Deuteronomy 22:20-21), which deal with the second scenario, contain far less procedural detail than those found in the first scenario (Deuteronomy 22:13-19) where the husband is found to be a liar. How exactly is it that the husband was found to be telling the truth in this second scenario? Did he produce a bloodstainless garment? What kind of evidence would that be? Perhaps there was in ancient times an obligation for the father to produce a bloodstained garment the morning after a virgin's wedding and the failure of the father to do so would be enough 'evidence' to constitute guilt, resulting in his daughter's death by stoning. If, indeed, a

340 This verse would translate more smoothly if the word "and" was deleted. The function of the word "and" in this sentence is more paratactic than conjunctive.

341 Literally: "you shall burn". One would assume the punishment for such a woman would be "death by burning" had the previous verse not specified death by stoning. The term "you shall burn" is therefore translated figuratively and meant to designate a removal of an evil from a society. I therefore translate the ".as "and you shall expurgate ובערת word

131

bloodstainless garment was proof of the young woman's lack of virginity, then how would the husband prove that he actually had sex with her on top of said garment? What kind of controls were in place? Remember, it was the father who produced the garment. How was it that he had possession of the evidence? These factors most probably led Rabbi Yosi the son of Rabbi Bôn to his extremely radical reading of both the Biblical passage and REB"Y, a reading that seems at great variance with the written text. First, Rabbi Yosi the son of Rabbi Bôn not only but he ,(זוממים) makes the evidence in the passage about witnesseses and zomemim introduces the concept of counter-zomemim (a third set of witnesses who turn the second set of witnesses in zomemim.) It seems like he is motivated by a necessity to explain the primary mystery of the Biblical text: How is it possible for a husband to ever prove that his claim is correct, that his wife was not a virgin? As discussed earlier, it is nearly impossible for the husband to prove that his wife was not a virgin, a bloodstainless sheet would hardly be considered physical evidence. The only way to prove she was not a virgin was to bring witnesses to testify that she had sex with someone else. Rabbi Yosi the son of Rabbi Bôn wants to additionally explain the second clause of the Biblical passage which has the husband proving himself correct in his claim. This second clause can be either read as an alternate scenario or, as Rabbi Yosi the son of Rabbi Bôn does, a continuation of the first clause. Rabbi Yosi the son of Rabbi Bôn solves the problem of how a husband can prove his claim by having the husband's second set of witnesses make witnesses. This is the only possible (זוממים) the father's witnesses themselves zomemim way to discredit the father's witnesses since they are not actually testifying about the woman's virginity. Second, Rabbi Yosi the son of Rabbi Bôn interprets REB"Y's literal stance not to exclude witnesses, but rather to require both a sheet and witnesses. Perhaps he means witnesses that the sheet was not tampered with.

Legislating the Biblical Scenario: What Problems the rabbis Faced

The effectiveness of a bed sheet, or garment, in providing evidence in virginity claims is not the only problem the rabbis faced when trying to legislate this Biblical passage. Anal sex presents a major problem for claims of virginity according to the rabbinic understanding, and legislation, of sex. According to rabbinic interpretation, anal sex and vaginal sex are identical in the sense that they are both considered a sex act of equal legal standing. The Rabbis arrive at this notion through their analyses of the Biblical laws against male homosexuality. Both in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 the injunction against male homosexuality is put in terms of heterosexual sex. Leviticus 342 18:22 has: "And a male shall not lie down [with a man] the layings down of women."341F Leviticus 20:13 has "And a man who lies down with a male, [in a manner of] the layings

וְאֶת זָכָר �א תִשְׁכַּב מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה תּוֹעֵבָה הִוא 342

132

down of women: they have both done an abomination; they shall certainly die; their 343 blood is upon them."342F How would two men engage in a homosexual act that can be compared to a heterosexual act? It is only through the recognition of heterosexual anal

sex as an intercourse. This recognition stems from the Bible's use of the plural "layingsU U .when referring to the type of sex that a man can have with a woman (מִ שְׁ כְּ בֵי) "down Therefore the rabbis state in explanation of the words "the laying down of women" Leviticus 20:13; 18:22): "The Bible equates usual (vaginal) sex with) ( מִ שְׁ כְּ בֵ י אִ שָּׁ ה) 344 unusual (anal) sex."343F So, for the rabbis, if a woman were to have had anal, but not vaginal, sex then although she would be considered a physical virgin she would not be 345 considered a halakhic virgin.344F She therefore might be able to produce a bloodstained garment, upon consummation of her marriage, even in a case where there were witnesses that she had had (anal) sex with someone other than her husband. Along these lines, the הטייה Bavli also recognizes the possibility that a man might be skilled in the sexual art of 346 (bending/tilting/leaning?).345F The particularities of this practice have been lost with time. is that it is a sexual technique which allows a man to have sex הטייה What is known about 347 with a virgin while her hymen remains intact.346F Another factor, the age of the woman in question, also presents a problem for the where the husband claimed that) מוציא שם רע rabbis trying to legislate the Biblical laws of his wife had not been a virgin at the time of their marriage) in their current Babylonian cultural setting. The Rabbis recognize that as a woman grows older her hymen naturally 348 deteriorates.347F She therefore has less of chance of bleeding upon her first act of sexual intercourse. In Biblical times, girls were married off by their fathers at a very young age. where the husband claimed that his) מוציא שם רע This is apparently the case in the Biblical wife had not been a virgin at the time of their marriage) passage as is evident from the fact that the husband is engaged in a dispute with the father rather than the girl. By rabbinic times, this practice had all but disappeared and, barring a few exceptions, when the rabbis discuss betrothal they imagine it to be an agreement between a woman and a

וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכַּב אֶת זָכָר מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה תּוֹעֵבָה עָשׂוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם מוֹת יוּמָתוּ דְּמֵיהֶם בָּם 343

This formulation is found at Kiddushin 22b. Sanhedrin (משכבי אשה כתיב הקישה הכתוב כדרכה לשלא כדרכה) 344 54a and Horayot 4a and 4b have different formulations of this principle. The principle itself is uncontested in the Bavli and is the unspoken assumption behind tens of Bavli passages.

345 See the second example of chapter two for a discussion of halakhic (versus physical) virginity.

346 See footnote 173.

347 See Ketubot 6b; 10a; and Niddah 64b. It has been argued that the existence of the hymen was unknown in the ancient world. See Kathleen Coyne Kelly, Performing Virginity and Testing Chastity in the Middle Ages (Psychology Press, 2000). . However, see page 20 where she explicates the metaphor of the bolt, the door, and the bar found at Ketubot 10a.

348 See footnote 160.

133

349 man rather than man and a girl's father.348F To complicate matters, there are four categories of womanhood in the rabbinic conception of maturation. (1) A girl under the 350 349F (2) A girl older than three that has not yet.(פחותה מבת שלש שנים ויום אחד) age of three Physical signs, rather than age, define puberty in .(קטנה) began the process of puberty 351 352 rabbinic law.350F The age, however, is generally understood to be around 12.351F (3) A girl This stage is either defined by a six month) .(נערה) who is in the process of puberty 353 period or by physical signs).352F (4) A woman who has completed the process of puberty 354 353F Due to the rabbinic understanding that a woman's hymen naturally.(בוגרת) 355 deteriorates with age or certain non-sexual activities,354F they rule that a woman who has can no longer have a virginity claim brought against ,בוגרת ,reached the fourth stage 356 357 her.355F This law is put forth in a Tannaitic text, a Baraita.356F Therefore, the entire Tannaitic conversation concerning virginity claims brought by a husband against a wife is limited to cases where a woman was betrothed on her own accord while in stage 3 (as a .(נערה

349 Although, on a theoretical level, the girl's father is a major part of the discussion of marriage in the Bavli, the role of the girl's father is almost absent from anecdotal discussions of marriage in the Bavli.

350 The Rabbis consider the ages when a sex act is actually halakhically considered to be sex as nine years old for a male and three years old for a female. (See, for example, Niddah 44b and Yevamot 96b) Additionally, the rabbis imagine that if a girl had sex before she was three then her hymen would grow back (Niddah 45a). Such a girl is therefore considered both a physical and a halakhic virgin.

351 The physical sign of the onset of puberty can be the appearance of two pubic hairs (Ketubot 29a) as well at Mishnah Niddah 5:7 or [במשל] as other secondary physical indicators (either those expressed figuratively those mentioned in relationship to breast development at Mishnah Niddah 5:6.)

352 See for example Yevamot 12b. The reason for the use of physical signs in some instances and age in others has to do with what the Court can assume in situations where the presence of physical signs is unknown. This is often the case owing to the fact that the physical signs are on a part of the body that is generally hidden from view.

353 This debate between Rav and Shmuel is discussed at Kiddushin79a. Shmuel's opinion is cited independent of Rav at Ketubot 36a and Niddah 65a. As for the nature of the physical signs that end this .see Mishnah Niddah 5:8 which details a dispute between Tannaim regarding these signs (נערות stage (of All of the opinions in this Mishnah relate to a stage in the formation of the girl's breast or nipples.

.at the age of 20 בוגרת A woman who never developed physical signs of puberty is considered a 354 (Mishnah Niddah 5:9)

355 See Shabbat 63b regarding a certain family whose girls would take large steps while walking and their ,They (it is unspecified who) made a chain, attached between their legs .(נושרות) hymens would fall away to prevent them from taking large steps.

356 Ketubot 36a.

357 Tannaitic literature that is similar to the Mishnah but not canonized as such.

134

Perhaps owing to a number of these considerations, the Talmud introduces a new 358 פתח פתוח :kind of virginity claim that is not found in the Mishnah, Baraitot,357F or Tosefta I found an open door). A couple of discussions found in the anonymous layer of) מצאתי the Bavli distinguish between two types of virginity claims: a blood claim and an open 359 360 door claim.358F It is unclear exactly what the nature of an "open door" claim is.359F What

claim is discussed in legal cases or dicta involving Tannaim these instances are not פתח פתוח Although a 358 presented as Baraitot. (See for example Ketubot 10a where a tradition is passed down from a Tanna, by an claim. Additionally, on that same page, Rabban Gamliel is seen commenting פתח פתוח Amora, involving a Although the Rabban Gamliel case is presented in Hebrew, giving the impression .פתח פתוח on a case of that it is of Tannaitic origin, a closer look reveals that the introduction of the story as well as the connecting words are both given in Aramaic. In any event this story is not introduced by the type of formulaic language that would imply that it is a Baraita.)

359 Ketubot 9b and 36b. In each of these cases the Bavli does not elaborate on the difference between these two claims. However, both MS Saint Petersburg 187 and Vatican 112 to Ketubot 36b contain additional texts that do not appear in the printed editions or any of the other manuscripts. The added text in MS Saint to be one where a man claims that he found an open door but פתח פתוח מצאתי Petersburg explains the case of did not check for blood. The additional Saint Petersburg text, following a lemma that states that there is no :quoted from a Baraita at Ketubot 36a), reads) בוגרת virginity claim for a

והאמ' רב בוגרת נותנין לה לילה [ה]ראשון הכא במאי עסקינ' דקא טעין פתח פתוח פירוש אי אמ' בעלתי ולא מצאתי דם טענה מעליותא היא והכא דקתני אין לה טענת בתולים דקא טעין ואמ' פתח פתוח מצאתי ועל הדם לא בדקתי אם נמצא בה אי לא אי דקא טעין טענת פתח פתוח הכי נמי הכא במאי עסקינ' דקא טעין טענת דמים

to have sex multiple times] on her first] בוגרת But did not Rav allow a does bleed and that בוגרת night of marriage? (This would prove that a Rav assumed that the blood that she saw was the result of tearing her hymen rather than menstrual blood. Rav therefore allows her to have a second time during her first night of marriage. Had Rav assumed that a does not bleed then he would have been forced to assume that the בוגרת blood that she saw was indeed menstrual. In such a case he would not have allowed her to have sex a second time.)The case of [the Baraita] is one of an 'open door' claim, explained as follows, if he said 'I had sex and did not find blood,' then it is a good claim. And when it says here [it is a case] בוגרת in the Baraita] that there is no 'virginity claim' for a] where he said, 'I found an open door, but I did not check to see whether or not there was blood.' If his claim was an 'open door' claim then it would be [a] good [claim.] [But in the Baraita] he [had] made a blood This would agree with .בוגרת claim. (And there is no blood claim for a Rav.)

Tosafot to Ketubot 36b appears to have a text similar to the Saint Petersburg manuscript. The printed editions follow Rashi's text. Rashi, in explaining his version of the text, does explain the difference her vagina is no longer as tight as בוגרת between the two claims. Rashi says that once a woman becomes a 135

is known is that an "open door" could only be detected by someone with considerable sexual experience.361 Finally, the Bavli at Ketubot 10b seems to ward off blood virginity claims in general by making use a wine barrel test362 or providing exceptions based on medical reasons or genetic makeup. The last two provide reasons why a virgin woman may possibly not bleed during her first sexual encounter.363

Background for Ketubot 15b-16a: the Four Cases

The Talmudic passage that I will use to demonstrate the unifying force of the Superstam, a force that goes beyond the sugya unit and one that operates at the level of language, is located at Ketubot 15b-16a. As I have proposed in earlier chapters, the global Bavli reader is a reader that is familiar with the entire book. The appearance of rare words in any sugya therefore creates a link, in the mind of the Bavli reader, between all sugyot in which the word appears. The Bavli reader understands what a word means in its current context and then compares its meaning in that context with the way that the same word means in the other contexts. When the Bavli reader turns to the second or third context in which the rare word appears, he returns not only with the meaning of a particular word but with the entire weight of the context in which that word appears.

משבגרה אין רחמה צר כבתחילה ) it was beforehand and therefore the husband thinks that she was not a virgin ד"ה: ה"ג אי דקא טעין טענת דמים הכי נמי הב"ע דקטעין טענת פתח ,Rashi to Ketubot 36b] .(ודומה לו כאילו פתח פתוח [פתוח

is similar to "vaginal laxity", a gauge currently used in India to determine whether or פתח פתוח Perhaps 360 not a rape victim had previously been "habituated to sex." Nilanjana S. Roy, “For Indian Rape Laws, Change Is Slow to Come,” The New York Times, September 21, 2010, sec. World / Asia Pacific, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/world/asia/22iht-letter.html?_r=1.

and its relationship to a blood פתח פתוח For traditional commentators who struggle with the nature of For a comprehensive .פתח א and the 'Arukh's entry to (ד"ה האומר) virginity claim see Tosafot to Ketubot 9a analysis of the different conceptions of the signs of physical virginity in the Ancient and Medieval world see Kathleen Coyne Kelly, Performing virginity and testing chastity in the Middle Ages (Psychology Press, 2000). pp. 17-39.

361 See Ketubot 10a. The discussion involving Rav Nahman could be seen as a Stammaitic invention.

362 In this test, the woman sits on a wine barrel. If her breath smells of wine then she is not considered to be a virgin. If her breath does not smell of wine then she is considered a virgin. It is unclear from the context whether or not this test is to be taken seriously. If such a test is to be taken seriously then it certainly favors the woman, unless, of course, she has a couple of drinks before taking the test. The test can also be seen as mode of stripping control over knowledge of virginity away from a suspecting husband and placing this control in the hands of the rabbinic authorities.

363 For the Bavli's anti-virginity claim stance, see Shulamit Valler, Women and Womanhood in the Talmud, trans. Betty Sigler Rozen, Brown Judaic Studies 321 (Atlanta, Ga: Scholars Press, 1999), pp. 29-50.

136

This reader then rereads the current context with all of that other information raised to the surface. Since the rabbis apply this type of semiotic reading technique in their interpretation of the Biblical text, it makes sense that their culture would produce a text that lends itself to operate on its reader in a similar manner. This is all the more true if the Bavli reader learns how to read by mimicking the reading practices of the rabbis, the reading practices employed by the Bavli. As far as Bavli sugyot go, the opening sugya of the second chapter of Ketubot, located at 16a, is quite usual in its program. It seeks to reconcile Tannaitic material both with itself and with the Amoraim who have interpreted this material previously. The sugya is also standard in the sense that it ties together all of this material in a manner that leaves the reader wondering if all of the steps taken by the sugya were merely designed to as a buildup to some predetermined conclusion.364

The sugya that begins the second chapter of Ketubot (15b-16a) will be the focus of the literary feature of the Bavli that I seek to highlight in this chapter. The amount of - שקלא וטריא) prerequisite Talmudic material necessary to understand the basic dialectic literally, "taking and throwing" or "taking and shaking") of that sugya is quite vast. I therefore will first summarize the most essential information that the reader is expected to know when confronting that sugya. Four consecutive Mishnayot in the first chapter of Ketubot (1:6-1:9) present four different court cases, all of a sexual nature, where the 365 believability of a woman's testimony regarding herself is called into question.364F There are no witnesses in any of these court cases. In each of the cases Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eli'ezer (hereafter referred to as R"G and R"E) side with the woman while Rabbi Yehoshu'a (hereafter referred to as R"Y) sides with the husband. The first two cases 366 involve virginity claims put forth by the husband; 365F the third case involves the 367 368 genealogical status366F of the man with whom she is purported367F to have had sex; the

364 In this regard, see pp. 296-301 of Shamma Friedman, “A Critical Study of Yevamot X with a Methodological Introduction,” in Meḥḳarim U-Meḳorot, ed. Haim Z Dimitrovsky (New York: Bet ha- Midrash le-Rabanim ba-Ameriḳah [distributed by Ktav Pub. House], 1977), 278-441.

365 On the admissibility of a woman's testimony in general, and differences between a woman's testimony regarding herself and regarding others, in rabbinic law, see Judith Hauptman, Rereading the rabbis: A Woman’s Voice (Westview Press, 1998). pp. 196-220.

366 The header of the first Mishnah defines the case as: "If one marries a woman and did not find her [to have] (literally: 'find to her) tokens of virginity." Although the case, as such, is presented from the perspective of the husband it is presented in a factual tone.

367 I use the term "genealogical status" rather than "lineage" because one's lineage does not always determine one's genealogical status. For example if a priest marries a divorced woman (even if she was ḥalal) is not allowed to marry into) חלל ḥalal) rather than a priest. A) חלל also a priestess) then the child is a the priesthood.

137

fourth case involves an [unmarried] woman who is found pregnant, where the father's identity, and therefore genealogical status, is called into question. In all of these cases, as is common in the Bavli, Amoraic dicta are cited and analyzed by the anonymous voice of Talmud in an attempt to explain the Mishnah. In two of the cases (the second and third) a dispute between Amoraim as to how to interpret the Mishnah is essential for understanding the sugya at 15b-16a. Additionally, certain legal concepts, which had been addressed in the Gemara to these Mishnayot (located at Ketubot 12b-13b), are later introduced by the Bavli's anonymous voice in its discussion of these four cases at Ketubot 15b-16a. For the sake of brevity, I will only include in my summary of the four first chapter cases those Amoraic debates and later legal concepts that are essential for an understanding of the second chapter sugya at Ketubot 15b-16a. The first case presented in the first chapter of However, Mishnah what Ketubot is unique (1:6) isabout one thiswhere 369 sugyaa woma isn, the upon manner being in accused which it of systematically non-virginity, reviews368F admits a complex to the fact and that extended she was not a discussionvirgin when from she thefirst previous slept with chapter. her husband Therefore, but claims before to moving have been on toraped an explication during the of Ketubotperiod of 15b their-16a, betrothal. it is necessary The woman's to outline claim those would portions allow of her the to first collect chapter the fullof tractate 200 zuz Ketubotmarriage that contract are dealt of a withvirgin, in ratherthe second than chapterthe 100 sugya.zuz contract of a non-virgin. This is so because she had been a virgin at the time of her betrothal. The husband then enters a 370 counterclaim. He claims that she had in fact had sex, whether by rape or otherwise,369F prior to their betrothal. The marriage contract should therefore be voided on the grounds that it was entered into under false pretenses. The Bavli, in its discussion of this since") which is") מיגו Mishnah, introduces the Talmudic legal concept known as 371 sometimes applied to cases involving testimony.370F

with [some]one." (The Bavli (מדברת) The header of this Mishnah reads: "They saw her speaking 368 perceives the word "speaking" to be a euphemism. Whether it is a euphemism for seclusion, or actual sexual intercourse, with the unknown man is a dispute between Amoraim.)

הנושא את האשה ולא מצא לה :The Mishnah begins by setting up the situation that leads to the court case 369 If a man marries a woman and did not find her to have tokens of virginity.) It is important to note) בתולים as this concept does not exist in Mishnaic times פתח פתוח מצאתי that the case is not one where the man said (see footnote 358). Although the next Mishnah begins with the claimants’ arguments, and no scenario leading to the court case is detailed, the same opening to the Mishnah is understood even though it is unwritten.

370 This fact is not specified in the husband's counterclaim but the grammar of the statement would imply that he was responding to the rape claim. It makes sense to read the husband as responding to the rape claim because it makes his counterclaim stronger. It is as if he's saying: "I believe you that you did not have consensual sex before our betrothal, however, that does not change the fact that you deceived me regarding your virginity." Vatican 487 and Munich 95 to Ketubot 16a, where this Mishnah is quoted, add you were raped"; This word, however, is absent in all other MSS as well as the Parma"—נאנסת the word and Kaufmann Mishnah MSS.)

in the Bavli does not always signal use of this legal concept. Sometimes מיגו The appearance of the term 371 believe]) מיגו דאי בעי אמר ליה when used as a legal concept, is shorthand for ,מיגו ".it simply means "since him when he says X] since if he wanted to he could have said [Y] to him [and been believed]). The longhand for the legal concept appears in the Bavli in both the feminine and masculine third person singular as well as the first person.

138

since") is generally employed as follows. When a person") מיגו The concept of testifies and makes a weaker claim than they could have made, they are believed in their weaker claim on the basis of the stronger claim that they could have theoretically made. This is so "since" they could have lied and won the case outright by making the stronger claim. The court therefore assumes that they are telling the truth when they make the weaker claim because the court presumes that if someone would lie then they would tell the best lie possible. In this case, the woman could have simply stated that she had lost 372 her tokens of virginity not through rape but rather as the result of an accident.371F A מוכת עץ woman who has had an accident of this sort is referred to in the Mishnah as a ("one who was struck by wood") and is the subject of the following Mishnah (which will be case number 2.) When the woman, in this first case, claimed she was raped, she had actually weakened her own position because she disqualified herself from ever marrying 373 in the future.372F She is therefore believed to have been telling the truth (כהן) a priest because she could have avoided disqualification to the priesthood by lying and saying she one who was struck by wood"). This would explain why R"G and R"E") מוכת עץ was a believe the woman's testimony. Rabbi Yehoshu'a, however, does not believe the since") in") מיגו woman's testimony, apparently because he does not apply the principle of 374 this case.373F The second case presented in the Mishnah (at Ketubot 1:7), regarding a woman's believability in a virginity claim is where she admits to having no tokens of virginity but she was struck by wood"). The") (מוכת עץ) claims that it is merely the result an accident husband then enters a counterclaim, saying that she had in fact lost her tokens of virginity to a man and not via accident. In this case too, R"G and R"E believe the woman's testimony while R"Y does not. This case is a little more complicated than the other three

.but rather alludes to it מיגו The Bavli does not specify the actual 372

373 A priest may not marry a woman who was raped while betrothed or married. This stems from the is usually translated as זונה Leviticus 21:7). Although the word) זונה prohibition against a priest marrying a "harlot" the rabbinic conception of the meaning of the term in this context is far more broad than that category) איילונית translation. The opinions range from a woman raped while married (Yevamot 56b), to an of woman who can't conceive) (Yevamot 61a), to a woman who had sex while unmarried (Yevamot 61b). The most extreme opinion, brought in the Bavli, is that even a woman who practices tribady with another as far as the prohibition of marrying a priest (Yevamot 76a). The prevailing זונה woman is considered a is none other זונה opinion seems to be the one offered by the Sages (in the Mishnah at Yevamot 6:5): "A Although rape is not ".(בעילת זנות) than a convert; a freed slavewoman; and one who had illicit sex considered illicit sex vis-à-vis a non-priest it is considered illicit sex vis-à-vis a priest (Ketubot 51b). Yevamot 56b specifies that although when the wife of a non-priest is raped she is permitted to her husband she is still disqualified, by that rape, from subsequently marrying a priest.

374 Three mitigating factors are introduced by the Bavli in trying to understand the legal basis behind the opinions of R"G and R"E, on the one hand, and R"Y, on the other. The Bavli grapples with these mitigating factors by introducing a comparable case. The three mitigating factors at play are: (1) The fact that woman is sure in her claim that she was raped but the husband's claim as to the timing of her loss of tokens of virginity is merely conjecture; (2) The fact that a woman is born a virgin and is therefore assumed to be one unless proven otherwise; (3) The fact that in monetary claims it is the party seeking to remove money from the party who is in possession of the money that bears the brunt of proving their claim.

139

because the claims of either side can be understood differently depending on the position one takes on two related rabbinic debates, one Amoraic and one Tannaitic. The Bavli presents the opinions of two Amoraim who dispute the nature of the monetary claims of this Mishnah. Rabbi Yohanan says that the woman is asking for the full 200 zuz marriage contract while the husband is asking that it be decreased to 100 zuz. According to Rabbi Yohanan's interpretation, this Mishnah is different from the previous one in that the husband is not seeking to invalidate the marriage contract completely but rather to reduce it. Accordingly, the Mishnah would be referring to a case where the husband's counterclaim is that his wife had indeed had sex with a man but that this sexual encounter occurred prior to his betrothal to her, rather than after their betrothal, as was the case in the previous Mishnah. Rabbi El'azar,375 however, interprets the competing claims in the Mishnah to be where the woman is seeking 100 zuz and the man is seeking to void the contract entirely.376 This Amoraic debate hinges on a Tannaitic debate as to the status of a woman who lost her virginity as the result of an accident. Rabbi Meir holds that such a woman is entitled to 200 zuz while the Sages hold that she is only entitled to 100.377

375 Late third century Palestinian Amora. Not to be confused with Rabbi Eli'ezer of the Mishnah who was active in the late first/early second century.

376 It is unclear whether the husband's claim in this Mishnah is that she had had sex with a man while betrothed to him or beforehand. Had the Mishnah been referring to a case where the husband claims that his wife had had sex while married to him then that would be one way to explain why, according to Rabbi El'azar, the contract is voided entirely. The anonymous voice of the Bavli, however, does not take this tack. The shakla vetarya (give and take) of the anonymous voice of the Bavli perceives the debate between Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi El'azar to be about the law in a case where a man marries a woman under the assumption that she had never had sex with a man only to later find out that she had had sex with a man. Rabbi Yohanan believes that in such a case the woman is still entitled to 100 zuz. In other words, Rabbi Yohanan does not differentiate between the loss of tokens of virginity by accident or through sexual intercourse as it applies to invalidating the marriage contract. In both cases, the marriage contract is set at 100 zuz and not voided entirely. Rabbi El'azar would say that, in such a case, the contract would be considered to have been made under false pretenses and therefore voided.

377 It would seem that what is at stake in this discussion is whether or not the 200 zuz marriage contract of a virgin refers only to a physical virgin or to a halakhic virgin as well. (A halakhic virgin is any woman who has torn her hymen but yet has never had sex with a man.) One should keep in mind that there are times when a woman would be considered a physical virgin and not a halakhic virgin. A woman who has only had anal sex would be such a case. This possibility, I will later claim, led to increasing anxiety over the viability of adjudicating virginity claims in the first place.

The debate between Rabbi Meir and the Sages, when first presented at Ketubot 11a-b, is further complicated by an Amoraic debate as to the nature of the case that they are debating. Did the Tannaitic debate occur in a case where the man knew, prior to the writing of the marriage contract, that this woman had lost her tokens of virginity via an accident? Or, did it occur in a case where the husband only found out after the fact? This debate is between Rami the son of Hama and Rabbi Hiya the son of Rav Avin in the name of Rav Sheshet. It will not be relevant to the passage at Ketubot 16a that I will later discuss.

140

Rabbi El'azar would be siding with the Sages while Rabbi Yohanan would be siding with Rabbi Meir.378 The third case, presented at Ketubot 1:8, is one where a woman was seen "speaking" with an unknown man. When she is asked the nature of this man's 379 genealogical status, she offers his name as well as the fact that he is a priest.378F Once again, R"G and R"E believe the woman's testimony while R"Y does not. Two Amoraim .in this Mishnah (מדברת) "engage in a debate as to the meaning of the word "speaking Ze'iri says that, by "speaking," seclusion with the man is meant. Rav Asi says that "speaking," in this instance, means that she was actually seen engaging in sexual intercourse with the man. This debate, as will be discussed later, has an impact on the .since") claim") מיגו nature of the woman's theoretical The fourth case, presented at Mishnah Ketubot 1:9, is one where an apparently unmarried pregnant woman is asked to identify the fetus's father. She replies that the father is so-and-so who is a priest. Here too, R"G and R"E believe the woman's testimony while R"Y does not. According to R"Y, both the woman and the child would be disqualified from marrying a priest in the future. These four cases set the stage for a fifth case, which is presented in the first Mishnah of the second chapter of Ketubot, where R"Y finally believes a similar type of testimony, albeit one not involving a woman. It is interesting to note that one could 380 garner, from R"Y's use of language,379F that his refusal to believe the woman in any of the four previous cases arises not out of any conceptual basis but rather from his negative

since") is also at play in the Gemara to this Mishnah but I will save the discussion") מיגו The concept of 378 .since") for my explication of the sugya at Ketubot 16a") מיגו of this

379 It is unclear whether this exchange took place in court or on the street following the event. This case is different than the previous two because there is no plaintiff. It is the State, so to speak, which brings the court case against her in trying to establish whether or not she will later be permitted to marry a priest. Had she had sex with a man who was ineligible to her (e.g. a bastard) then she would be disqualified from ever marrying a priest. (Kiddushin 74b). we do not live by her mouth), which could be interpreted as "we do not trust women in) לא מפיה אנו חיין 380 general." The actual terminology used by R"Y, "mouth" is, in some instances, used as euphemism for אכלה ומחתה פיה ואמרה לא פעלתי און vagina (see footnote 255). This image in enforced by the use of the verse ("She eats and wipes her mouth; and says I did no wrong") (Proverbs 30:20) to explain why Rav Asi interprets the "speaking" of the Mishnah (1:8) to mean "sex." According to this reading, R"Y can be seen to ironically highlight the misogyny of his position by echoing the fact that all men do indeed enter life we, men, only—מפיה אנו חיין only by passing through the vagina of a woman, which is to say that indeed live by virtue of women. It is these women that R"Y seeks to dominate by denying them the same rights that a man has in making legal claims. Whether or not the rabbis were misogynistic is a hotly contested topic in recent scholarship. It is interesting to note, though, that Daniel Boyarin, who takes an approach that minimizes the misogyny of Rabbis, claims that the only two "misogynistic diatribe[s] in all of classical rabbinic literature" are attributed to Rabbi Yehoshu'a. [Daniel Boyarin, Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture (University of California Press, 1995).Charlotte Elisheva Fonrobert, Menstrual Purity: rabbinic and Christian Reconstructions of Biblical Gender (Stanford University Press, 2002). 33-36, for a nuanced critique of Boyarin's assessment of rabbinic misogyny. See, also, Judith Baskin's critique of Boyarin in Judith Reesa Baskin, Midrashic Women: Formations of the Feminine in rabbinic Literature (UPNE, 2002).

141

view of the testimony of women in general. The fact that the one case in which he finally concedes to R"G and R"E is a case that does not include the testimony of women certainly does not detract from this hypothesis. However, the Bavli certainly does not interpret R"Y's rulings in this manner. When treating each of R"Y's rulings, the Bavli imposes upon them strictly theoretical legal bases.

The Fifth Case: Rabbi Yehosh'ua Finally Concedes

The first Mishnah of the second chapter of Ketubot begins with a case where a woman who has been widowed or divorced comes to collect her marriage settlement. For whatever reason, there was no actual written contract available.381 Therefore, the standard minimums of 200 zuz for a virgin and 100 zuz for a non-virgin would apply. The woman claims that she had, perhaps many years earlier, originally been betrothed as a virgin and is therefore entitled to the full 200 zuz. Her ex-husband claims—or in the case of a widow, her former husband's heirs claim—that she was already a widow382 from another man at the time of their betrothal and therefore is only entitled to 100 zuz. In such a case, the Mishnah anonymously states, if there are witnesses that the wedding had been a wedding ceremony in the manner of the weddings of virgins then she receives the full 200 zuz.383 The second Mishnah of the second chapter of Ketubot, which will be the driving force behind the sugya at 16a, features the return of R"Y after a two Mishnah hiatus. R"Y's sudden return, as well as the conspicuous absence of his former adversaries (R"G and R"E) prompt the Bavli to delay its primary discussion of the first Mishnah of the

381 The Bavli debates whether this is because it was not the custom to write a marriage contract in that locale or whether it was because the contract was lost or destroyed. (Ketubot 16b)

382 The Mishnah here is simply trying to set up a general principle. Therefore, due to the multitude of types of cases for which this principle would apply, the actual cases presented in the Mishnah become somewhat muddled. This was the case for the appearance of the man putting forth a claim from the grave, in the instance where she is now a widow, that we interpreted to refer to his heirs. Similarly, this woman could just as easily have been some other form of non-virgin (such as in cases of a divorcee, pre-marital sex, etc.) at the time of her betrothal to her last husband. The introduction of non-virginity via accident, was certainly avoided in this Mishnah owing to the first chapter Tannaitic debate as to whether such a woman is even entitled to the full 200 zuz virginal marriage contract (Mishnah Ketubot 1:3).

then can collect the full פרוע and her head was בהינומא The anonymous first opinion says "if she went out 383 means either that her hair was uncovered or that she wore her hair wild (or פרוע zuz. While the term 200 is unknown even to the Amoraim who work to interpret the בהינומא unbraided) the meaning of the term Mishnah. The second opinion offered in the Mishnah, attributed to Rabbi Yohanan the son of Berokah, expands the definition of what can be taken as evidence of a wedding ceremony in the manner of the weddings of virgins to even include the presence of roasted wheat at the wedding. Apparently, the ancient Mediterranean version of popcorn was only passed out at the weddings of virgins.

142

second chapter only until after treating the oddness of R"Y's reemergence. The Mishnah states:

[that [in a case (ומודה) And Rabbi Yehoshu'a concedes 384 where A says to B383F : "This field [previously] belonged to 385 386 your father yet I bought it from him" A384F is believed.385F Because the mouth that prohibited (impaired A's claim to the land) is the mouth that permitted (repaired B's claim to 387 However,386F if there .(הפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר) (the land 388 are witnesses that [the land] belongs to B's387F father and 389 390 391 A388F said that he bought it from B's389F father, [then] A390F is not believed.

To whom does R"Y agree? And in which case would he not agree? It does not appear as though R"Y is addressing the anonymous opinion presented in the previous Mishnah that dealt with witnesses to a wedding ceremony that took place in the manner of the weddings of virgins.

392 The Sugya at Ketubot 16a391F

(I present here a summary of the first part of the Bavli's discussion at Ketubot 16a rather than a translation of the text in block quotes. The Bavli text that appears in this part of the sugya is highly nuanced and an English translation would render it

384 Literally: One says to his fellow

385 Literally: He

386 Literally: "that he is believed." I moved the word "that" to the beginning of the sentence for the sake of sentence flow.

387 Literally: And

388 Literally: His

389 Literally And he

390 Literally: His

391 Literally: He

392 I provide a synopsis of all of the extant Bavli manuscripts to Ketubot 16a, as well as the Soncino and Vilna prints, in Appendix M.

143

incomprehensible without extensive elucidation.) The Bavli starts with an inference from the first Mishnah of the second chapter of Ketubot. In the four Mishnayot from the first chapter, the four cases outlined above, there were no witnesses brought in defense of 393 either the husband or the woman in any of the court cases. Yet in each case R"G392F believes the woman. However, in the first Mishnah of the second chapter, the woman would only be believed in her claim that her marriage contract had been a virgin's marriage contract if she produces witnesses that she had a wedding in the style of virgins. The Bavli suggests that this Mishnah must therefore not follow the opinion of R"G. The assumption being that R"G would have believed the woman without the assistance of witnesses in this case too. The Bavli strikes down this hypothesis by appealing to 394 uncertain claim).393F By appealing to these) שמא certain claim) and) ברי concepts of concepts, the Bavli argues that the Mishnah can even accord with R"G. certain claim) are employed by the) ברי uncertain claim) and) שמא The concepts of Bavli as follows. In a court case that pits the word of one claimant against another (with no witnesses to corroborate the words of either of their claims) there is quite a difference between a scenario where the two different parties differ as far as the level of certainty of their claims than when they do not. A scenario when one of the parties claims "I believe X" and the other party claims "I know Y" is very different than a scenario when both parties say "I know," when making their claims. In all of the cases of the first chapter the certain) claim. The woman knows whether or not she was a) ברי woman was making a virgin and exactly how and when she lost her tokens of virginity. She also probably has a better idea of who it was that she was secluded with, slept with, or got pregnant from, than random witnesses or the state. In contrast, both the husband of the first two cases uncertain) claim. In) שמא and the State and street witnesses of the latter two cases have a each of the four cases, they simply "suspect" her of wrongdoing. In none of the four 395 cases do they seem to say they "know" or can prove their claims.394F This must be the

393 For some reason R"E is not mentioned here or in this entire sugya save for situations when a Mishnah from the first chapter is quoted directly. This is true for all of the MSS as well as the Soncino and Vilna prints. Perhaps the reason for this is to avoid confusion between the Tanna Rabbi Eli'ezer of the first chapter Mishnayot and the Amora Rabbi El'azar who makes his way into this sugya (see footnote 375). Additionally, MS Vatican 130 and MS Vatican 112 introduce R"Y at this point and conjecture that the first Mishnah must be in accordance with R"Y. The Venice, Basel, and Vilna prints, as well as MS Vatican 487 and MS Munich 95, leave R"Y for later and focus on whether or not this Mishnah is in accordance with R"G. The approach presented in the Vilna actually makes for better reading as it creates suspense by not introducing R"Y until necessary. In contrast, the approach of MS Vatican 130 and MS Vatican 112 makes R"Y's later appearance anticlimactic.

394 These concepts had already made their appearance in the Bavli to the first case of the first chapter (1:6).

395 I say "seem to say" because in the first two cases (1:6 and 1:7) the tone of the husband's claim is one of certainty: "It happened before I betrothed you" (1:6) and "You were trodden by a man" (1:7). However, in these two cases had the husband actually known for certain that his claim was true he would never have betrothed her in the first place. In both of those scenarios it was not until he found her to be lacking tokens of virginity that he decided to bring his wife to court. In the latter two cases (1:8-1:9) there is no question that neither the street witnesses nor the State have any idea who her mysterious paramour is.

144

reason, the Bavli posits, why R"G believes the woman in all four cases of the first chapter. However, in the first Mishnah of the second chapter both parties have "certain" claims. This is so because the dispute is not about tokens of virginity but rather about the amount of the marriage contract, a contract that had not been contested at the start of the marriage. Both sides, therefore, have equal certainty as to the amount initially agreed upon at the time of the contract. This is why the Mishnah could actually present the opinion of R"G even though the woman would only be believed if she brought witnesses that the wedding had been virgin-style. At this point, the Bavli is so persuaded that the anonymous Mishnah (2:2) actually represents the opinion of R"G, despite its requirement for the woman to bring witnesses to have (הוה אמינא) in order to win her claim, that it questions its own previous thought suggested otherwise. The Bavli then defends its initial claim, that the Mishnah does not accord with R"G, by explaining that the Mishnah (2:1) is actually not a case of competing "certain" claims but is more akin to a case where a "certain" claim competes against an "uncertain claim." This is so because of the fact that most women get married as virgins. This fact mitigates, making the woman's claim stronger than the man's. It is for this reason that R"G would not require witnesses because it is indeed similar to the four cases of the first chapter. And since the Mishnah does require witnesses it must not accord with R"G. Now that the Bavli has explained why its initial suggestion—that the Mishnah does not accord with R"G—was a valid hypothesis, the Bavli returns to its initial conclusion that the Mishnah does accord with R"G. Even though the Mishnah (2:2) is a case of "certain" versus "uncertain"—due to the fact that that most women marry as virgins, which makes the woman's claim stronger than the man's—still, in this case, R"G veers from his earlier position and does not believe the woman's claim. Since the uncertainness of the husband's claim derives from a legal assumption rather than either party's testimony—the fact that most women marry as virgins—the "certain versus uncertain" of this case is different than the "certain versus uncertain" of the four cases dealt with in the first chapter. R"G therefore "concedes" to R"Y that the woman is not believed in this case. The Bavli attempts to prove this point—that the anonymous first Mishnah of the second chapter of Ketubot represents R"G conceding to R"Y—from the fact that the second Mishnah of the second chapter begins with "And R"Y concedes." It makes sense, the Bavli argues, for the second Mishnah to say "And R"Y concedes" because the first Mishnah has, though not explicitly, stated "R"G concedes." Why else would the second Mishnah begin with "And R"Y concedes"? The Bavli answers this question with a rhetorical question that shifts the focus away from the issue of "certain .since" principle) claims") מיגו versus uncertain claims" and onto the concept of

Do you [really] think that [when] R"Y [concedes] he is 396 referring to [the first Mishnah of] this chapter395F [and the

396 Vatican 487 and Vatican 112 have "here" instead of "this chapter."

145

397 legal concept of "certain versus uncertain"]? [No!396F When R"Y concedes] he is referring to the first chapter and [the .("since") מיגו [legal concept of Which [of the first chapter cases does R"Y refer to when he "concedes"? After all, there were four.] 398 If you say that it is this one397F —"She was pregnant and 399 they said to her398F 'what is the genealogical nature of this fetus?' [and she responded] 'It is from so-and-so and he is a priest.': R"G and R"E say she is believed; R"Y says we do not live by her mouth (i.e. we do not believe her)—in that !is there? Her stomach is between her teeth מיגו case what

only applies in a scenario when the woman מיגו In other words, the concept of could have told a better lie. In this case she could not lie and say that she did not have sex. The court sees her stomach and knows that she is pregnant. She therefore must have had sex, and therefore has no "better lie" to tell.

400 Rather ["R"Y concedes" must] refer to this:399F "They saw 401 her speaking with someone and they said to her400F 'What is the genealogical nature of this man?' [and she replies] 'he is so-and-so and he is a priest': R"G and R"E say she is believed; R"Y says we do not live by her mouth (i.e. we do not believe her)." 402 would there be?401F מיגו In that case what 403 It is well according Ze'iri Who says that by "speaking"402F is:] Since if she wanted she מיגו seclusion" is meant. [The" could have said 'I did not have sex' yet she said 'I had sex'

397 Munich 95 actually has the word "no" in its text.

398 Quoting Mishnah Ketubot 1:9.

399 The words "and they said to her" are absent from all of the extant manuscripts. These words are also absent in both the Parma and the Kaufmann manuscripts to Mishnah Ketubot. Those manuscripts read 1:8 היתה מעוברת מה טיבו העובר הזה מאיש פלוני וכהן And 1:9 as ; ראוה מדברת עם אחד מה טיבו שלזה איש פלוני וכהן הוא as As far as the appearance of the phrase in the Bavli .הזה instead of זה in Kaufmann. Parma has הוא Manuscripts to the first chapter of Ketubot: Vatican 112 and 113 do not have the phrase. Vatican 130 is which אמרו לו the oddest of the manuscripts because it does not have the phrase in 1:9 but 1:8 has the phrase certainly makes no sense.

400 Quoting Mishnah Ketubot 1:8.

401 Once again, this phrase is absent from all extant manuscripts (see footnote 399).

402 Literally: Is there.

403 These two words are absent from Vatican 112 and Munich 95.

146

[and she is therefore] believed. However, according to Rav Asi, who said that by "speaking" "had sex" is meant, what 404 would there be?403F מיגו

applies when someone could have מיגו As mentioned earlier, the legal concept of told a better lie and been believed. In this case, if she was seen in seclusion and admitted to having sex then we believe her when she tells us that the man was not someone who would have disqualified her from ever marrying a priest. The reason we believe her is because she could just as easily have told us that although she was secluded with the man she did not actually have sex with him. However, if she were seen having sex, as Rav Asi reads the Mishnah, then she has no better lie to tell. In accordance with its general program, the Bavli seeks to have the Mishnah make sense according to all opinions. If the Mishnah at Ketubot 2:2 did not make sense according to Rav Asi, then the Bavli could have used the Mishnah at Ketubot 2:2 to disprove Rav Asi's reading of the Mishnah 405 case to which R"Y would מיגו at 1:8.404F The Bavli therefore continues its search for the not concede.

406 Rather ["R"Y concedes" must] refer to this:405F "She says, 'I am one who was injured by [a piece of] wood (i.e. I lost my tokens of virginity through an accident).' And he says, 'Not 407 so! Rather you have in fact been trodden by a man':406F R"G and R"E say she is believed; R"Y says we do not live by her mouth (i.e. we do not believe her)." 408 since" principle) would there be?407F") מיגו There too what It is well according to Rabbi El'azar who says [that the dispute between the husband and wife in this case] is over is:] Since if she מיגו zuz] and no payment at all. [The] 100 wanted she could have said 'I became one who was injured by [a piece of] wood while under you (i.e. after our 409 betrothal)' and she would get 200 [zuz]408F yet she said [that

404 Literally: Is there.

405 As mentioned in the previous chapter, the Bavli has absolutely no qualms about presenting material out of order. In fact, in its discussion of Mishnah 1:6 (12b), the Bavli uses Mishnah 1:9 to try to corroborate a theory that it had used to explain 1:6.

406 Quoting Mishnah Ketubot 1:7.

407 Literally: You are one who has been trodden by a man.

408 Literally: Is there.

Therefore it is possible .לה instead of לי Literally: And 200 is to her. Vatican 487 and Vatican 112 have 409 to read those MSS as implying that the claim that she would have been deserving of 200 is actually part of her statement rather than the narrator's commentary on her statement, as I translated it. However, the mid- 147

her accident occurred] from the beginning (i.e. before her betrothal), [a claim that would] only entitle her to 100 zuz, she is [therefore] believed. However, according to Rabbi Yohanan who says [that the dispute between the husband and wife in this case] is over 200 [zuz] and 100 [zuz] what 410 would there be?409F מיגו

As mentioned earlier, two Amoraim debated as to how to interpret Mishnah 1:7, the second case involving a woman who admits to having no tokens of virginity but she was struck by wood"). In that") (מוכת עץ) claims that it is merely the result an accident case, the husband entered a counterclaim, saying, that his wife had in fact lost her tokens of virginity to a man, not via accident. The Amoraim debated, was this Mishnah a case where the wife is looking to receive the full 200 zuz while the husband seeks to reduce the marriage contract to 100 zuz or is it a case where the wife is looking to receive a partial 100 zuz settlement while the husband seeks to nullify the contract completely? If it is a case where the wife is only asking for 100 then she could have told a better lie. She could have claimed that she was betrothed to him while her tokens of virginity were still intact and lost them to an accident some time during the period before they consummated the marriage. However, if she is seeking the full 200 zuz then she has no better lie to tell. 411 one struck by wood") would only get 100 zuz.410F The court therefore has no") מוכת עץ A since") principle is only applied in cases where the") מיגו reason to believe her. For the claimant could have told a better lie. Once again, the Bavli seeks to have the Mishnah "since") מיגו make sense according to all opinions and continues its search for the principle) case to which, according to all Amoraic opinions, R"Y would not concede.

412 Rather ["R"Y concedes" must] refer to this:411F "[In a case where] one marries a woman and did not find her to have tokens of virginity. She says, 'I was raped after I was 413 412F And.(נסתחפה שדהו) betrothed and his field was flooded

sentence shift from rabbinic Hebrew to Babylonian Aramaic that such a reading would entail renders it .which makes no sense altogether ליה unlikely. Vatican 130 has

410 Literally: Is there.

411 According to the Sages (who dispute with Rabbi Meir on this point at Ketubot 11a-11b. There is also an Amoraic debate as to whether Rabbi Meir and the Sages are referring to a case where the woman did not deceive the man or only when she deceived him.)

412 Quoting Mishnah Ketubot 1:6.

גבר רש :My translation follows Rashi (at 2a) who uses a verse from Proverbs (28:3) as his prooftext 413 The sentence is generally translated something like "A poor man who oppresses .ועשק דלים מטר סחף ואין לחם the weak [is like a] hard rain [that leaves] no food." The simile offered by this proverb is a quite vague. In any event, Rashi reads this sentence to mean that when a rain falls hard it floods the field. The context in which Rashi gives his reading is not the context of our Mishnah but rather in a case where a woman got sick and could not marry at the allotted time. In such an instance, would the husband have to start paying 148

as having נסתחפה שדהו for her food? Can she say "it is your bad luck that caused this"? So for Rashi, reads A flooded field is just bad luck. The Arukh, on the other hand, draws his .( מזלך גרם) to do with bad luck מדוע נסחף אביריך לא :(interpretation from the other time that this root appears in the Bible (Jeremiah 46:15 translated as "Why are your mighty ones cut down? He did not stand because G-d threw him ,כי ה' הדפו עמד down." The 'Arukh then offers "lost and destroyed due to your luck" as an explanation of our Mishnah. which is סחף The verse that the 'Arukh has chosen actually emphasizes the true meaning of the root something like "throw down," which is why it would be translated as a "hard rain" in Proverbs. The imagery of "thrown down" makes sense in our Mishnah because it is a discussion of a rape. Both Rashi and the Arukh, however, incorporate all Biblical usages of the term in arriving at their "luck" oriented appears in our Mishnah as well as in another נסתחפה שדהו interpretations. In Tannaitic material the term one, also in tractate Ketubot (7:8), which reads as follows.

היו בה מומין ועודה בבית אביה האב צריך להביא ראיה שמשנתארסה נולדו בה מומין הללו ונסתחפה שדהו נכנסה לרשות הבעל הבעל צריך להביא ראיה שעד שלא נתארסה היו בה מומין אלו והיה מקחו מקח טעות דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים במה דברים אמורים במומין שבסתר אבל במומין שבגלוי אינו יכול לטעון ואם יש מרחץ באותה העיר אף מומין

שבסתר אינו יכול לטעון מפני שהוא בודקה בקרובותיו

If she had physical blemishes while still living in her father's house, then the burden of evidence is upon the father to prove that his daughter's blemishes were sustained only after her betrothal; and that it was the husband's field that was flooded. [However,] Once she entered into her husband's domain, it is upon the husband to prove that her physical blemishes pre-existed their betrothal; and that his transaction (i.e. the betrothal) transpired under false pretenses. These are the words of Rabbi Meir.

The Sages say: To which case does [Rabbi Meir's] words apply? Only to a case where her physical blemishes were located on a concealed [part of her body.] However, if the physical blemishes were located on a revealed [or visible part of her body,] then he has no claim. And if there is a bathhouse in the city, then he also has no claim vis-à-vis concealed blemishes. This is so because he can check her [for physical blemishes at the bathhouse] via his [female] relatives.

This Mishnah follows up the previous Mishnah which discusses what happens when a man marries a woman and finds her to have blemishes. In such a case he may divorce her without paying the marriage contract. "Blemishes" is defined as anything that would invalidate a priest from Temple service. The Mishnah cited above continues to discuss this case. According to Rabbi Meir if the woman had the blemishes while still living in her father's house then it is upon the father to prove that his daughter got the Once the woman .(ונסתחפה שדהו) blemishes after her betrothal and that the husband's field was flooded enters her husband's house it is up to the husband to prove that the blemishes existed prior to their betrothal. The Sages limit the case to blemishes that are not located in concealed places; and even when in concealed places, only when there is no bathhouse in her city because he can get his relatives to check her while at the 149

he says, 'Not so! Rather it414 happened before I betrothed you [...415] R"G and R"E say she is believed; R"Y says we do not live by her mouth (i.e. we do not believe her)." [416 is:] Since if she wanted she could have said 'I מיגו The] [one who was injured by [a piece of) מוכת עץ became a 417 wood) while under you (i.e. after our betrothal)'416F which would not disqualify her from the priesthood (i.e. marrying a priest in the future) and [still] she said 'I was raped' which disqualifies her from the priesthood.

does not have the connotation of "thrown down" as had been possible ונסתחפה שדהו bathhouse. In this case appears in three other contexts in the Bavli. Nedarim 90b-91a ונסתחפה שדהו in the case of rape. The phrase asks whether the wife of a priest receives her marriage contract if she is raped. Does the fact that a priest can no longer live with his wife if she is raped make her similar to the wife of a non-priest who had consensual sex? Or can the woman say "I am fit but it is the man whose field is flooded." Meaning, had the woman been married to a non-priest she would have received her marriage contract and it is only the man's special status that has made him ineligible to continue living with her. The second case, mentioned above, is where the woman got sick and could not marry the husband on the previously determined date. The third, if a woman became a menstruant and therefore could not marry the husband on the previously determined date. The Bavli then goes on to qualify the case as being one where the woman became a menstruant on a day that was not part of her regular cycle. (These two cases, especially the latter, do not If (או שפירסה נדה make so much sense because in both cases the woman is permitted to marry. See Ritva to is not as much about "luck" as it ונסתחפה שדהו we take the sum total of all the meanings in these cases then is about "fault." When the woman is not at fault then the phrase applies. The commentaries of R. Aharon to 2a, 1194- חידושי הרמב"ן) to Ketubot 2a, c.1235-c.1290), Nahmanides חידושי הרא"ה) Ha-Levi of Barcelona to 2a, 1250-1330, Spanish) explain the term to חידושי הריטב"א) Catalan), and R. Yom Tov Asevilli ,1270 even see Rashi's use of the term "luck" to mean something רמב"ן and רא"ה ".mean something like "fault like "fault."

you were) נאנסת Vatican 487 and Munich 95 explain the "it" to mean "the rape" by adding the word 414 raped). This word does not appear in any of the other MSS nor the Kaufmann and Parma Mishnah manuscripts. This leaves open the possibility that the husband does not concede her claim of rape at all, and by "it" he simply means "you lost your tokens of virginity." However, the grammar of the sentence would seem to imply that "it" refers to rape. Additionally, the husband's counterclaim would be stronger if he concedes the rape and still argues for a purchase under false pretenses.

And my purchase was a mistaken) - והיה מקחי מקח טעות Vaticans 487, 130, 112, and Munich 95 all add 415 purchase.) —which is what appears in the Parma and Kaufmann Mishnah MSS. This phrase mean that the purchase occurred under false pretenses. The Biblical and rabbinic conception of betrothal is one of a when a man takes a) כי יקח איש אשה purchase or acquisition. When the Bible describes a betrothal it says derive from the same root. In (מקח) "and the noun for "purchase (קיחה) "woman). The verb for "taking discussing the use of money to effect a betrothal, the Bavli uses another Biblical instance of the verb for .See Kiddushin 2a .(קנין) to demonstrate that betrothal in an acquisition (קיחה) "taking"

would there be מיגו Vaticans 487, 130, 112, and Munich 95 all insert some version of the question "What 416 in this case?" here.

before marriage, as in the מוכת עץ Note that it would not have been better for her to say she was a 417 previous case, because then she would have certainly deceived him in some way.

150

That is why R"G418 says that she is believed.419 420 of the Mishnah] here] מיגו And R"Y says419F to R"G: In this of the] מיגו I concede to you. [However,] in that (2:2) Mishnah]] there (1:6) I disagree with you.

The Bavli now examines the reason why R"Y would not agree with R"G in then מיגו Mishnah 1:6 yet would agree with R"G in Mishnah 2:2. If they are both cases of why would R"Y not maintain a consistent ruling in both cases?

a "since" principle) and) מיגו Now that this [is a case] of 421 a "since" principle) what is the) מיגו that [is a case] of 420F since" principle case) and that") מיגו difference between this since" principle case)? Here (the case of the Mishnah") מיגו at Ketubot 2:2) there is no slaughtered ox in front of you There (the case of the Mishnah at Ketubot .(שור שחוט לפניך) 422 1:6), behold a slaughtered ox is in front of you.421F

What exactly is a "slaughtered ox" and what does it have to do with either of these cases? Even without the Bavli's explanation it would not be hard to see the difference between the case in which R"Y concedes (2:2) and the case in which he does not (1:6). the mouth that) הפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר The Mishnah in the second chapter is one of 423 מיגו prohibited is the mouth that permitted).422F The Mishnah in the first chapter is one of

418 On the absence of R"E here: see footnote 393 above.

419 Vaticans 487 and 122 omit this sentence and just have "she is believed" which can be read as a continuation of the last sentence.

both here and in the previous sentence as "says" because it is less confusing קאמר I translate the word 420 קאי that "is saying". "Is saying", though, would be more correct for the following reason. Oftentimes standing) is added to a participle as a prefix, creating a more emphatic ,קום contraction of participle for) effect. So here the translation would be "R"Y is saying to R"G." The effect is that the Bavli is entering the present tense of a moment of the Mishnah text and explaining what is going on in that moment.

421 Vatican 130, Munich 95, and the Soncino print omit the first half of this sentence. Vatican 130 and the Soncino print begin from this point in the sentence. Munich 95 simply replaces this whole sentence with "What is the difference?"

Vatican 487 .שחוט instead of טבוח Vatican 130 reverses the order of this sentence and has the synonym 422 It is easier to explain this .שור שחוט switches "here" and "there" making the Mishnah at 2:2 the case that is away as an inconsequential mistake rather than viewing this manuscript as saying something else about is a very strange term that really only שור שחוט means. One must keep in mind, though, that שור שחוט what means something in this context by reading it with an understanding of the differences between the two cases.

.appears here at 2:2; twice at 2:5 הפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר 423

151

the principle of "the) הפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר the "since" principle) and) מיגו .(since) mouth that prohibited is the mouth that permitted") are simply two different legal believe her when she says]) מיגו דאי בעיא אמרה ליה since) is shorthand for) מיגו .concepts מיגו .([X] since if she wanted to she could have said [Y] to him [and been believed (since) is applied by the court when a witness or claimant makes a worse claim than they could have made. A special provision is made in such cases and the witness or claimant הפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר is believed without further evidence. In contrast, in the case of (the mouth that prohibited is the mouth that permitted) the court can say: If he wanted to since), which) מיגו he could have said nothing. This is not at all similar to the principle of is applied as: "If the court wanted to, they could have provided the liar with a better lie." הפה since) and) מיגו This is reason enough for R"Y to hold different opinions in cases of the mouth that prohibited is the mouth that permitted). They are) שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר simply two different types of cases. So why the "slaughtered ox"?

Beyond the Sugya: Reading Ketubot 16a as Part of the Bavli

It would be one thing if the "slaughtered ox" was a common legal principle, idiom, metaphor, or symbol in the Bavli. If that were the case, then its appearance here would seem less odd. However, as a legal principle it makes only one other appearance in all 36 volumes of the Bavli. In fact, the term "slaughtered ox" only appears one additional time, when not used as a legal concept, throughout the entire Bavli. Interestingly enough, these two other occurrences take place within pages of each other in tractate Niddah (15a and 19b). The first appearance of the phrase in tractate Niddah is identical in form and function to its appearance in Ketubot. Niddah 15a, as was the case with Ketubot 16a, has the image of the "slaughtered ox" being used to explain why a Mishnaic Tanna "concedes" his otherwise adversarial position. The reference to the "slaughtered ox" in tractate Niddah is likewise a legal scenario that would pit a claim backed by "evidence" against one that is not. (The following is an abridged version of Niddah 15a. I have omitted all details, disputes, and complications and have only retained the essence as it relates to Ketubot 16a. For a comprehensive explanation of the context in which this "slaughtered ox" passage appears in tractate Niddah, as well as an overview of some of the background information necessary for understanding the passage in context, see Appendix I.)

The Mishnah at Niddah 2:3 deals with two cases. In the first case, the Sages and Rabbi Akiva disagree. In the second case, the Sages "concede" to Rabbi Akiva. The first case is one where a woman waits a little while after having sex before checking herself for menstrual blood. Upon discovering blood, and unsure whether she had begun to menstruate at the time that she had had sex, the woman is deemed retroactively ritually 152

impure for twenty-four hours by rabbinic decree. The dispute in the Mishnah between Rabbi Akiva and the Sages centers on the man who had had sex with her during the previous twenty-four hour period. Does the Rabinically ordained retroactive ritual impurity extend to him or not? The Sages do not extend the ritual impurity to the man; Rabbi Akiva, however, does. In the second case of the Mishnah, a woman discovers a bloodstain on her garment. In such a case the woman is considered ritually impure, by rabbinic decree, only from the time that she discovered the bloodstain and onward. What is the status of a man who has sex with this woman after she discovered the bloodstain? In such a case, the Sages would "concede" to Rabbi Akiva and render such a man ritually impure. What is the point of the Mishnah telling us that the Sages would render this man ritually impure? He had sex with a woman who already knew she was ritually impure;424

The other occurrence of the term "slaughtered ox" in the Bavli is found at Niddah 19b. Here the term is not a legal concept. It is actually just a slaughtered ox. Therefore not much background information is necessary to understand the context in which this slaughtered ox makes its appearance. The Mishnah (2:6) details five colors of menstrual The .(האדם) blood that render a woman ritually impure. One of the five is red blood following Mishnah (2:7) asks: "Which is red?" In other words, what hue of red is this red Note that] .(כדם המכה) "similar to? The Mishnah answers: "Like the blood of the wound the Mishnah does not state "like the blood of a wound" but rather "the blood of the wound." Whether or not the Mishnah knowingly equates this color red with the color of [.is unclear. The image is certainly alive ,מוכת עץ the wound of defloration, or of a The Bavli, however, is unsatisfied with the Mishnah's comparison and seeks a further comparison:

424 Whether or not she told him of this fact is never addressed by the Bavli.

153

What is 'like the blood of the wound'? Rav Yehudah said כדם ) that] Shmuel said: Like the blood of a slaughtered ox] .(שור שחוט כדם ) 'And why not say 'like the blood of slaughtering ?(שחיטה If he would have said 'like the blood of slaughtering' [then] I might have thought 'like the [blood of] the entire slaughtering.' [He] comes to tell us: 'like the blood of the wound' [i.e.] like the first strike of [the] knife. 'Ulla says: Like the blood of a living bird.

the legal principle of) מיגו Ketubot 16a had concluded its discussion of R"Y and "since") by explaining why R"Y does not believe a woman who claims she was a virgin the legal) מיגו in the face of her husband's claim to the contrary. R"Y, who allows for the legal) מיגו principle of "since") in the case of the father's field, does not allow for principle of "since") in the case where the wife claims she was raped because of the "slaughtered ox" in that case—, where "slaughtered ox" symbolizes the husband's the) מיגו evidence. The fact that the husband has evidence disallows the possibility of legal principle of "since"). The Bavli concludes the discussion of virginity claims, a discussion that has gone on for some 30 (15 double-sided) pages, with: "Here there is no slaughtered ox in front of you. There, behold a slaughtered ox is in front of you." This expression marks the conclusion of the discussion and it represents the final word on one of the longest treatments of any individual subject in this entire ancient canon. The logic and rhetoric is convincing, certainly to the reader drawn in to the overall structure and organizational scheme of the Bavli sugya in which it appears (Ketubot 15b-16a). However, it is the Bavli's poetic layer, a layer that draws on both words and the images behind those words, that makes the Bavli the rich text it is. When the reader of Ketubot 16a encounters the slaughtered ox, two other Bavli texts (located at Niddah 15a and 19b) are activated. Once activated, the reader experiences Ketubot 16a with the symbolic weight of these two other Bavli texts. The slaughtered ox of Niddah 15a and 19b provide the reader of Ketubot 16a with two simple, distinct, and undeniable images. The first, derived from Niddah 15a, is of a bloodstained garment. The second, derived from Niddah 19b, is one of female genital blood. It is these two images that are invoked when the reader faces the strange expression "slaughtered ox" at Ketubot 16a. Without the Niddah texts the reader is merely left understanding that by "slaughtered ox" "evidence" is meant. However, the images of a bloodstained garment and genital blood, provided by Niddah 15a and 19b, remind the 425 reader of the nature of this supposed evidence that the husband claims to have. 424F The

425 Once the association is made, the reader also notices the phallic imagery provided by Shmuel's first striking of the knife, conjuring the wound of defloration. It is also fascinating that it is 'Ulla who provides the image of bird blood. 'Ulla was a Palestinian Amora who, through his numerous travels, often functions, in the Bavli, as a coduit for the transfer of Palestinian traditions to Babylonia. Bird blood, in the Yerushalmi, represents the image of the virginity ruse. It placed on the marital sheet by a woman 154

evidence of virginity is to be found in genital blood and the bloodstained garment; but what is the evidence of lack of virginity? There is none. The husband's evidence is merely a lack of evidence, a lack of bloodstains and genital blood. Although the conclusion of Ketubot 16a is presented as the final word on virginity claims, a final word that is both strong and convincing, the mode of expression that the Bavli uses to provide that conclusion is precisely what works against it. The evidence of case (where the husband claimed that his wife had not been a virgin at the מוציא שם רע a time of their marriage) only exists when the man is proved to be in the wrong. There is no physical evidence that can prove a woman to have not been a virgin. The Rabbis' anxiety concerning this lack of balance in the Biblical scenario is expressed not in logic or rhetoric but by an aesthetic choice of words. So who chose those words? And who placed them in the sugya at Ketubot 16a? Who placed them in the sugyot at Niddah 15a ofand course 19b. heWhat would was be the ritually order ofimpure! the placement The Bavli of theseat Niddah words 15a in explainseach of the that sugyot the ? Mishnah This had chapter to tell usdemonstrates that the man how is also the deemedpoetic layer ritually of the impure Bavli becau existsse in otherwise halakhic we wouldsugyot haveas well thought as those that which a comparison are aggadic. can beWho made creates to the this first type case of oftext the whose Mishnah. individual In componentsthe first case appearof the Mishnah,to work in the one twenty direction-four while hour theretroactive interaction impurity between is a these rabbinic componentsinvention. Perhaps work in that yet isanother? why the Ifman the isStam not alsois the deemed crafter rituallof the ysugya impure, then by the StamSages. craftsSince thebloodstains rhetoric areof the also sugya only. a So rabbinic who crafts invention the counter then perhaps-rhetoric the effected man should through not the be sugyarendered's interaction ritually impure with other in that sugyot case asthrough well. theThe mechanism Bavli believes of trigger this to words?be a legitimate I claim thatrationale there foris anotherwhy the literary Sages’ forceconcession at work was in thenot Bavli,obvious a forceand therefore that is above must and now against explain the workreason of for the the Stam. Sages' How concession. does this literaryAlthough force the relawoman'ste to the ritual multi impurity-Stams inthat each Boyarin of the talkscases about?is merely a rabbinic decree, the two cases are still somewhat different. In the first case, thereThe is Bavli, no "slaughtered as a genre, ox"appears before to beyou; a logicalin the second or empirical case there text. is. However, Meaning, there in the is afirst poetic case, aspect the woman to the Bavlidid not that know plays she a majorwas ritually role in impure. how the However, Bavli conveys in the its second meaning. Thecase, aspect she had of founda poetic a bloodstaintext that I referon her to garment. is that while Where poetry did saysthis bloodstainone thing with come its from? sense ofIt mustlogic, be it assumedalways says that something the garment else became with the stained symbolic because power she carried was menstruating. by the individual It is wordsfor this which reason it thatuses even to express the Sages the deemidea that the theman words impure; work there against. was actual This isevidence manifestly to the evidentwoman's when ritual particular impurity wordsat the timethroughout that they the had Bavli had create sex. a network of meaning that works to undermine the apparent meaning, or historical evolution, of a particular sugya. When the network of words, found elsewhere in the Bavli, is not part of the evolution of the sugya itself there is no way of determining which came first. Therefore one must conclude that the Bavli, if viewed as a book rather than a miscellany, was formed not by individual moments of concrete design but rather by myriads of moments of textual tweaking performed by generations of literary artisans. These craftsmen, who I call the Superstam, were affected by both the Bavli's semiotic reading strategy as applied to the Bible as well as the Bavli's own aesthetic representation of its own ideas. In turn, they furthered the work of those who came before them and continued the process of Bavli, which is a quest for questions rather than answers.

attempting to deceive her husband and fake her virginity. See Yerushalmi quoted above (Ketubot 26a) as well as Yerushalmi Ketubot 3a.

155

Chapter 6: Ambivalent Artistry: The Effects of the Bavli's Unifying Use of Language on Its Local and Global Readers

Kiddushin 70 and the Problem of Translation

Scholarly opinion is split as to how to properly render the Bavli into English; this is especially true when the goal is to portray the Bavli's literary characteristics. Several different methods have vied for what might be called industry standard: a) direct block text translation followed by analysis, modeled after Soncino Press' translation of the Bavli;426 b) the "Harvard-outline" format, such as is used by Jacob Neusner;427 c) elucidation, in which the critic inserts words within the text, usually in brackets, to guide the reader through the logical flow of a laconic Talmudic passage; and d) synopsis, where the critic evades the problems presented by translation, avoiding actual presentation of the text completely. I have used each of these four techniques at different points in this dissertation. However, in this chapter , when presenting the story of the court case adjudicated by Rav Naḥman, involving Rav Yehudah and the anonymous man from Nehardeʿa,428 I opted for a radically different form, that of a play. While the story's extreme length, multiple scenes, rapid fire dialogue, and conspicuous use of props invite this form of presentation, my point in presenting the story as a theater script is to encourage the reader to think differently about the Bavli and how it functions literarily. The Bavli itself provides its reader little in the way of indicators of intonation or expression when presenting dialogue. Instead, the Bavli invites the reader to supply what description is missing in the text. By presenting the story as a play, I ask the reader to act at once as director, actor, and theatre-goer, encouraging this reader to notice a number of areas of emphasis that might otherwise escape notice.429 To begin with, at many points in the narrative presented at Kiddushin 70, the Talmudic text does not inform the reader which character is actually delivering a

426 Edited by Isadore Epstein (London: 1970). Soncino Press' translation of the Talmud is in British English. Most contemporary scholarly work, even when done in Great Britain, translates the Talmud into American English. 427 Harvard outline format divides the text into a series of statements each demarcated in an increasingly indented series of numbering systems (e.g. I; A; 1; a; i).

428 Bavli Kiddushin 70. 429 See Norman Rabkin, Shakespeare and the Problem of Meaning (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), 27.

156

particular line of dialogue. 430 This, in turn, forces the reader into a more active and authorial role— the role of director— in imagining how this dialogue might be performed. 431 What expression is on the actor's face as he or she performs a certain line of dialogue? What is the tone or inflection in his or her voice? Secondly, the form in which I present the Kiddushin 70 story encourages the reader, in two ways, to pay close attention to how the words in this passage actually sound432 — a feature that is crucial to unlocking the passage's true literary nature. The first is the form in which I present the story. A play implies oral performance and therefore sound. The second is the extent to which I translate. Throughout my translation I leave those words that are essential to understanding the story's literary aspects untranslated. (I do, however, provide both translation and transliteration in parenthesis for each of these occurrences.) As I argue in this dissertation, the key to understanding the literary genius of the Bavli is found in the Bavli's use of language. How does the Bavli choose to express a given idea? How does a particular choice of words, at any given moment, work in concert with other moments of word selection, to create an aesthetic that defines both the art and unity of the Bavli? It is very difficult to convey this literary effect in translation while remaining true to the original text. Thirdly, I encourage the reader to think of the actors in this drama as characters rather than historical figures and the props as symbols that function as characters in the Bavli's world. The point of this exercise will become clear in my final contextualized reading. When envisioning the literary role of named persons in the Bavli, one should imagine the manner in which these characters are portrayed throughout the Bavli rather than trying to elicit some true picture of the historical life they led. For example, if a character is portrayed as living in two distinct time periods, then that character, in the

430 At some points in the narration there is no textual indication that one person has stopped speaking and another has begun. It is up to the reader to figure out who would be delivering a particular line of dialogue. ,ămar lêh) ("he said to him"). However) אמר ליה In other cases, textual indicators are given, in the form of even in such cases the reader must remain active. For example, in lines 40 and 41 are both spoken by Rav ămar lêh) introduces both lines leading the reader initially to believe that Rav) אמר ליה ,Naḥman, however Yehudah will deliver a line which would only logically be delivered by Rav Naḥman. The effect of this literary device in rabbinic literature has been examined at length in Bernard Septimus, “Iterated Quotation Formulae in Talmudic Narrative and Exegesis,” in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel, ed. James L. Kugel, Hindy Najman, and Judith Hood Newman (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 371- 398. See note 3 on page 372 for a general bibliography for the function of this literary device. 431 Line 23 of Scene 2 is an example of a line of dialogue that highlights this point. (See footnote 472 there.) 432 This element is crucial in Scenes 2 and 3. The important words, which will be addressed throughout my analysis of the passage, are both presented in Hebrew or Aramaic as well as in transliteration. The Hebrew or Aramaic words are presented in bold font and the transliterations are placed in italics. [For the use of sound as a literary device in rabbinic texts see Galit Hasan-Rokem, Web of Life: Folklore and Midrash in rabbinic Literature (Stanford University Press, 2000), 22.]

157

Bavli, is one that lived for the entire time span (say 150 years) dividing these periods.433 Additionally, the multiple props, which appear in this drama, should also be conceived of symbols (or odd characters) who make other appearances in the Bavli. Finally, I want to reinforce my conception of the evolution of this passage (and the Bavli as a whole) as the result of hundreds of years of oral performances. Each performance slightly altered the one which came before it, most importantly on the level of language.434 According to this conception of the evolution of the Bavli, a number of these performances were frozen at the moment of their accidental or intentional writing or publication.435 When we refer to the "Bavli," we must mean either any or all of the existing recordings, the manuscripts or printed editions— or even, in some cases, an imagined original upon which they all are based. The particular version of the Bavli that I use as the starting point for my translation is the Vilna edition, published by the widow and brothers Romm (1886). This edition is the most popular edition of the Bavli and since my analysis of the Bavli does not seek to recover an "original" text—but rather learn something about reading— it makes sense to analyze the version of the Bavli that is most read. I have, however, included all of the textual variants for the Oxford 248,436 Munich 95 (Paris: 1343), Vatican 111437 manuscripts, as well as the Spanish (1485?)438 and Venice (Bomberg, 1521) prints in the notes to my translation. Each of these versions of the Kiddushin 70 passage contains its own literary qualities. I therefore, throughout my treatment of the literary features of Kiddushin 70, point out the linguistic and logical nuances of each manuscript or printed edition. It is of importance , when assessing the literary quality (rather accuracy of the historical transmission) of each version, to see how many of the literary features contained in the Vilna edition also exist in each of the other witnesses as

433 I do not refer to extremely unrealistic lengths of time within the Bavli's own conception of a possible lifespan. In such a conception 150 is not extremely unrealistic. (See Megillah 28a regarding Rabbi Yehoshua the son of Karḥah; also see Kiddushin 72a-b for a number of Rabbis whose lives are presented as spanning multiple eras; additionally, a number of rabbis are said to have lived 120 years [equating to the "ideal" lifespan of Moses].) I only contrast to those scholars who, while searching for historical accuracy, miss out on the Bavli's internal narrative logic. According to the Bavli's internal logic, two characters bearing the same name, who appear to be one and the same person in the Bavli, should not be considered to actually be two different people simply because the span of their activities is historically unrealistic. 434 See footnote 117; and Gregor Schoeler, James Edward Montgomery, and Uwe Vagelpohl, The Oral and the Written in Early Islam (Taylor & Francis, 2006), 28-142. 435 See Martin S. Jaffee, “rabbinic Authorship as a Collective Enterprise,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and rabbinic Literature, ed. Charlotte Elisheva Fonrobert and Martin S. Jaffee (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 33; Susan Niditch, Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature (Louiseville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 117-124. A. N. Doane, “Oral Texts, Intertexts, and Intratexts: Editing Old English,” in Influence and Intertextuality in Literary History, ed. Jay Clayton and Eric Rothstein (University of Wisconsin Press, 1991), 75-113. 436 Date unknown. Probably 14th century. 437 Date unknown. Probably 14th century. 438 There is considerable scholarly debate as to the year this text was printed. See Marvin J. Heller, Printing the Bavli (Im Hasefer, 1992), pp. 15-49.

158

well as what literary features found in the other witnesses are missing from the Vilna edition. My analysis of the story at Kiddushin 70 will proceed in three stages.439 The first stage will analyze the story as its own literary unit. I will examine both the story's logic and, more importantly, pay careful attention to the Bavli's use of language in the process of narration. I will then detail how meaning and emphasis shifts when the story is viewed within its immediate context— the two Mishnayot between which it sits in the Bavli. Finally, I will read the story as part of the entire Bavli-complex. This third reading demonstrates the primary feature of the Bavli's literary art, how the Bavli's choice of words (at any given moment) works to unify the entire book, or 36 books, into a complex web of mutually destabilizing meaning.

Kiddshin 70: Presented as a Theater Script440

SCENE I 1 A certain man from Nehardeʿa 441 goes to the slaughterhouse in Pumpedita442.

439 For treatment of this story, see Ya’akov Elman, “Middle Persian Culture and Babylonian Sages: Accommodation and Resistance in the Shaping of rabbinic Legal Tradition,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Bavli and rabbinic Literature, ed. Charlotte Elisheva Fonrobert and Martin S. Jaffee (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 165-197; Catherine Hezser, “The Slave of a Scholar is Like a Scholar,” in Creation and Composition: The Contribution of the Bavli Redactors (Stammaim) to the Aggada, ed. Jeffrey L. Rubenstein, Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 114 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 181- 200; Richard Lee Kalmin, The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity (Routledge, 1999), 52-57; Jacob Neusner, A History of the Jews in Babylonia, vol. 2 (Leiden: Brill, 1968), 65-67, 142-145; Adiel Schremer, Zakhar U-Neḳevah Barʻam: Ha-Niśuʼim Be-Shilhe Yeme Ha-Bayit Ha-Sheni Uvi-Teḳufat Ha-Mishnah Ṿeha-Bavli (Yerushalayim: Merkaz Zalman Shazar le-Toldot Yiśra'el, 2003); Moulie Vidas, “The Bavli’s Discussion of Genealogy in Qiddushin IV,” in Antiquity in Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Pasts in the Greco-Roman World, ed. Gregg Gardner and Kevin Lee Osterloh, Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 123 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 285-326; and Barry Scott Wimpfheimer, Narrating the Law: A Poetics of Talmudic Legal Stories (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011), 147-163. 440 Note on the translation: First, this translation attempts to stay as true to the text as possible while maintaining a sense of normal conversational language. In instances of stage direction I switch past Bavli's tense to present tense. As different cultures tell stories in different ways I believe that when presenting this story as a play what would be deemed past tense in the Aramaic telling of the story can be altered to present tense in the English staging of the story as a play without losing any textual integrity. When a character’s ămar lêh),” literally meaning “he said to) אמר ליה“ name appears before a line it represents the Aramaic ămar) אמר ליה“ him.” When a character in the text speaks and that character’s line is not introduced by lêh)” I place the character’s name in parenthesis. Second, stage directions are presented in italics. Third, for all occurrences of words that will be important to my later discussion, I have provided the original Hebrew or Aramaic, followed by a translation and transliteration in parenthesis. Fourth, I have detailed manuscript and print variants in footnotes. Fifth, I have provided a synopsis of the extant manuscripts and major print editions in Apeendix N. 441 The identification of this man as Nehardean only appears in Vatican 111, but is absent from Oxford 248, Munich 95, as well as the Venice and Spanish Prints.

159

2 MAN FROM NEHARDEʿA: Give me meat! šamʿêh) of Rav ,שמעיה) PUMPEDITANS: Wait until the servant 3 yěḥezqēʾl, Ezekiel) [the rabbinic leader of) יחזקאל Yehudah the son of 443 444 Pumpedita] takes442F and then we will give you443F . 445 שויסקאל MAN FROM NEHARDEʿA: Who is Yehudah 444F the son of 4 446 447 448 (glutton, šěwîsqēʾl) 445F to go first and take446F before me!447F 5 The PUMPEDITANS go and relate [the incident] to RAV YEHUDAH. 449 6 [RAV YEHUDAH448F ] places the [MAN FROM NEHARDEʿA]under a ban. 450 7 [PUMPEDITANS449F :] This Nehardean man is in the habit of labeling .ʾîynšî) [as] slaves ,אינשי) people 8 RAV YEHUDAH publicly proclaims the MAN FROM NEHARDEʿA a slave. 451 9 The MAN FROM NEHARDEʿA summons 450F RAV YEHUDAH to appear in court before RAV NAḤMAN [in Nehardeʿa.] 452 10 [RAV YEHUDAH] brings the writ of summons451F before RAV HUNA [the rabbinic leader of a third city, Sura] 11 [RAV YEHUDAH:] Shall I go (appear in court before Rav Naḥman 453 in Nehardeʿa) or shall I not go452F ?

442 The order of these words is switched in Vatican 111. ,ברישא) "bîśrāʾ). Munich 95 and Vatican 111 have "takes first ,בישרא) "Oxford 248 has "takes meat 443 běrêšāʾ). The word is absent in the Venice and Spanish Prints. 444 The word "you" is absent in Munich 95. 'yěhûd) יהוד' שויסקאל :yěhûdâ bar šěwîsqêl); Munich 95) יהודה בר שויסקיל :Oxford 248 and Venice Print 445 rav yěhûdâ bar) רב יהודה שביסקאל :bar šěwîsqēʾl); Spanish Print) בר שויסקאל :šěwîsqēʾl); Vatican 111 šěbîsqêl). 446 This word is of disputed origin but appears to have something to do with meat. Note the play on words .(qēʾl) קאל ,šěwîsqēʾl) end with the same three letters) שויסקאל yěḥezqēʾl) and) יחזקאל here. The words z") sounds that precede those three letters might, in certain dialects (and") ז s") and") ס Additionally the dialect is an important theme of this passage), sound more similar than they look when following a long "î." It is helpful to think about how an "s" sounds in the English word "gas," depending on the dialect, this word is pronounced with a "z" sound, an "s" sound, or a cross between the two. 447 Oxford 248 adds "meat." Venice Print is the only witness to double this expression, the rest of the witnesses merely say "to take before me." 448 Literaly "who goes first...who takes..." 449 Munich 95 and Spanish Print add "brought out horns"; Vatican 111: "his horn." 450 Vatican 111 adds "they came." 451 The import of the textual variants of this sentence will be discussed later. Munich 95 and Vatican 111 (dasqāʾ) דסקא ṭasqāʾ) and) טסקא have the bringing the writ of summons to Rav Yehudah in the form of Vatican 111. 452 These words only appear in the Venice Print, the significance of which will be discussed later. 453 The Spanish Print has "shall I go or not?" 160

12 [RAV HUNA:] There really is no need for you to go because you are 454 gabrāʾ rabâ),453F however out of respect for the ,גברא רבה) a great man [bê něśîâ ) [you should indeed ,בי נשיאה) house of the presidency 455 456 arise454F and go455F .

SCENE II 457 13 [RAV YEHUDAH] goes456F [to NEHARDEʿA] and finds [RAV 458 fence, maʿăqeh).457F) מעקה NAḤMAN] making a 14 RAV YEHUDAH: Do you not agree with the statement of Rav 459 460 461 Huna458F the son of Idi459F in the name of Shmuel460F : When a man is appointed a public official he is prohibited from working in the presence of three [people]? 462 463 464 ,fence) ד 463גונדריתאRAV NAḤMAN: I am 461F just making a small462F F 15 dě-gûnděrîytāʾ). (fence, maʿăqeh) מעקה [RAV YEHUDAH: Do you despise [the term 16 fence, měḥîyṣâ) used) מחיצה [which is written in the Bible, or [the term 465 by the rabbis464F ? 466 .(on a chair, aqrapîyṭāʾ) אקרפיטאRAV NAḤMAN: [Please] sit F465 17 (chair, sapsāl) ספסל [RAV YEHUDAH: Do you despise [the term 18 467 אינשי chair, ʾîyṣṭěbāʾ) 466F used by) איצטבא used by the rabbis, or ([ordinary] people, ʾîynšî)? 468 .(citron, ʾatrûngāʾ) 467אתרונגאRAV NAḤMAN: [Please] eat an F 19

454 Rav Yehudah's greatness can either refer to his status as a scholar or to the fact that he was the leader of the Jewish community in Pumpedita. [This line appears in the all of the printed editions but not in any of the extant manuscripts.] 455 This word is absent from Oxford 248 and Munich 95. 456 This word is absent from Oxford 248, Munich 95, and Vatican 111. 457 Literally: “Went” (or in the present tense: “Comes.”) This word is absent in Oxford 248. 458 Vatican 111 adds "for his roof." (nîhālāʾî) ניהלאי :něhîlāʾî); Spanish Print) נהילאי Oxford 248, Munich 95, and Vatican 111, substitute 459 460 These words are absent from Oxford 248. 461 Oxford 248 substitutes: Shmuel. 462 This word is absent from Oxford 248, Venice Print, and Spanish Print. .("ṣûrt', probably meaning "form) צורת' :Munich 95 substitutes 463 -dě) דגונדרנא :dě-gûnděr'); Vatican 111) דגונדר' :dě-gûnděrîzāʾ); Munich 95) דגונדריזא :Oford 248 464 .(dě-gûndrěyāʾ) דגונדריא :gûnděnāʾ); Venice Print and Spanish Print 465 The last few words of this sentence are elided in the Spanish Print. .(qôpîṭāʾ) קופיטא Oxford 248 spells this word 466 ".(maṣṭabtāʾ) מצטבתא maṣṭawtāʾ), probably a corruption of) מצטותא The Spanish Print has 467

161

אתרונגא RAV YEHUDAH: This is what Shmuel said: Whoever says 20 rāmût ,רמות רוחא) citron, ʾatrûngāʾ) is one third filled with arrogance) 469 citron, ʾetrôg) 468F as it is called by) אתרוג [rûḥāʾ). Either [use the term 470 [citron, ʾatrûgāʾ),469F [the term] used by [ordinary) אתרוגא the rabbis or .(ʾîynšî ,אינשי) people ,alcoholic beverage) אנבגא RAV NAḤMAN: [Please] drink some 21 471 ʾanběgāʾ).470F ,alcoholic beverage) איספרגוס RAV YEHUDAH: Do you despise 22 ,alcoholic beverage) אנפק ʾîspargôs) as it is called by the rabbis, or ?(ʾîynšî ,אינשי) ʾanpak) [the term] used by [ordinary] people 472 dônag, [presumably,] Rav Naḥman’s) 471דונגRAV NAḤMAN: Let F 23 daughter) come give us [something] to drink. 24 RAV YEHUDAH: This is what Shmuel said: It is forbidden to make use of a woman. 473 474 25 (RAV NAḤMAN:)472F [But] she is [just] a minor473F ! 26 (RAV YEHUDAH:) Shmuel explicitly said: One may make no use of 475 a woman whatsoever474F , neither adult nor minor. 476 477 yaltāʾ, Rav) ילתא RAV NAḤMAN:)475F [Please] 476F send greetings to) 27 Naḥman’s wife). 28 RAV YEHUDAH: This is what Shmuel said: [The] voice of a 478 woman is sexually illicit.477F 29 (RAV NAḤMAN:) Perhaps [send greetings] through a messenger.

Note that the order of) .(אתרונגא ,t) ת insead of (אטרוגנא ,ṭ) ט The Spanish Print spells this word with a 468 ṭ) in variant spellings of similar words) ט g) are also switched in the edition.) The use of) ג n) and) נ the throughout the Bavli is significant as part of a composite point made later in this chapter. 469 Munich 95 has these words in a different order. ṭ) in variant) ט The use of .(אתרוגא ,t) ת insead of (אטרוגא ,ṭ) ט The Spanish Print spells this word with a 470 spellings of similar words throughout the Bavli is significant as part of a composite point made later in this chapter. .(ʾansag) אנסג Spanish Print has 471 472 Spanish Print adds the words "do you think [she should]?" This is a moment in the text where the reader must imagine a number of possible ways that these lines are delivered vis-à-vis their tones and inflections. .ămar lêh) appears in Oxford 248 as well as Spanish Print) אמר ליה 473 ".gědôlâ) but she is a minor ,גדולה) Vatican 111 adds "but that is for an adult 474 475 The beginning of this sentence does not appear in Munich 95, Vatican 111, nor Spanish Print. In these editions it is merely implied. .ămar lêh) appears in Munich 95, Vatican 111, as well as Spanish Print) אמר ליה 476 477 Munich 95 has "Shall you not...?" 478 Munich 95 shortens this part of the dialogue, omitting line 29 and combining lines 28 and 30. Oxford 248 does something similar.

162

30 RAV YEHUDAH: This is what Shmuel said: It is forbidden to exchange greetings with a woman. 31 (RAV NAḤMAN:) [Even] through her husband? 32 RAV YEHUDAH: This is what Shmuel said: It is forbidden to exchange greetings with a woman in any situation. 33 [RAV NAḤMAN’s] wife (YALTA479 šěrê lêh tīgrêh) so ,שרי ליה תגריה) MESSENGER:) Settle his business) 34 ignoramus, ʿam) עם הארץ that he does not make you into an 480 hā’āreṣ).479F

SCENE III 35 RAV NAḤMAN: What [is the purpose of] your travel here? šdar mar) me a subpoena ,שדר מר) RAV YEHUDAH: You sent 36 481 ṭasqāʾ).480F ,טסקא) document 37 RAV NAḤMAN: Seeing that I am not knowledgeable in your manner ,משדרנא למר) šûtāʾ), would I have sent you ,שותא) of speech ṭasqāʾ ,טסקא דהזמנותא) měšadarnāʾ lěmar) a subpoena document 482 483 děhazměnûtāʾ 481F )?482F ,דיסקא) RAV YEHUDAH] pulls out the subpoena document] 38 484 děyasqāʾ)483F from his chest [pocket] and shows it to [RAV 485 NAḤMAN.] 484F

479 Oxford 248, Munich 95, and Spanish Print specify "Yalta" but omit "wife." The scholarly debate over Yalta's relationship to Rav Naḥman and is discussed later in the chapter. 480 This term is only used in the Venice Print. This editio princeps version is important for my discussion אינשי of the use of this term in this passage later in this chapter. The term used in the other witnesses is (ʾînšê, [ordinary] people), which nicely echoes the use of this term lines 7, 18, 20, and 22. 481 Here the witnesses vary greatly. The Venice Print reads as Vilna. דיסקא) Oxford 248: "For judgment before you. We're summoned for judgment." He pulled out the writ [děyasqāʾ]) of summons and showed it to him. (Line 39 is then omitted and the text continues with line 40.) děyasqāʾ]) of summons on me. (the dialogue] דיסקא) Munich 95: "You imposed (shadi mar abatrai) a writ continues with line 37.) Vatican 111 and Spanish Print: "I'm summoned for judgment before you." děyasqāʾ), Venice Print) דיסקא Vatican 111 and Spanish Print omit the word "writ." Munich 95 spells it 482 .(ṭasqāʾ) טסקא spells it as 483 This line is absent from Oxford 248. דייסקא This transliteration follows the lead of Sokoloff who has the correct spelling of the word as either 484 děyaʾsqāʾ). Sokoloff cites the vocalized Yemenite manuscript, where the spelling is) דיאסקא děyyasqāʾ) or) as is the case with the Vilna printed edition I work from). The Yemenite manuscript vocalizes the as) דיסקא y) is pronounced as a consonant. [Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish) י děyisqāʾ. In any event, the Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002), 330.]

163

hā gabrāʾ ) and behold ,הא גברא) RAV YEHUDAH: Behold the man 39 486 dasqāʾ).485F ,דסקא) the document 487 488 40 RAV NAḤMAN 486F : Since you came here487F let us discuss [the 489 Nehardean man’s] matter488F so that they will not say that the rabbis .měḥanpî) one another ,מחנפי) favor 490 491 41 RAV NAḤMAN489F : Why did you place that man under a ban490F ? 492 42 (RAV YEHUDAH:)491F He aggravated a rabbinic emissary. 493 43 (RAV NAḤMAN:) [In that case] you should have whipped him492F – 494 as Rav whipped a person who aggravated a rabbinic appointee493F . 495 44 (RAV YEHUDAH:) I did better than that to him.494F 496 45 (RAV NAḤMAN:) Why did you proclaim495F him a slave? 497 46 RAV YEHUDAH:496F Because he regularly calls people slave. And [a Baraita] taught: And anyone who [genealogically] disqualifies is [genealogically] disqualified; and [this person] never speaks in praise [of anyone.] And Shmuel says: With his own blemish he [genealogically] disqualifies. 498 47 (RAV NAḤMAN:)497F Shmuel’s statement was only intended to mean 499 to suspect498F him [of disqualification.] Do [you really think the intent of Shmuel’s] statement [was] to proclaim him [disqualified]? 500 48 499F

485 This line is absent from the Spanish Print. 486 This line only appears in Venice Print which reads as Vilna. .(ămar lêh) אמר ליה Spanish Print omits the words 487 488 This word is omitted in Spanish Print. ".šûtêh) be heard ,שותיה) Spanish Print: "Let his speech 489 .ămar lêh) does not appear in Munich 95, Vatican 111, nor Spanish Print) אמר ליה 490 491 These last two words are elided in Spanish Print. .ămar lêh) appears in Oxford 248 and Munich 95) אמר ליה 492 493 This line is omitted in Oxford 248, Vatican 111, and Spanish Print, it appears in Hebrew in Munich 95. Spanish Print reads as Vilna. 494 Spanish Print reads as Vilna. All other witnesses omit the citation of Rav. 495 This line is omitted in Oxford 248, Vatican 111, and Spanish Print. .(ʾakrîz, proclaim) אכריז instead of (קרי) "Oxford 248 and Spanish print have "call 496 .(ămar lêh) אמר ליה Munich 95 omits 497 .ămar lêh) appears in Munich 95 and Spanish Print) אמר ליה 498 .(lěʾaḥăzûqê, to assume) ,לאחזוקי Vatican 111 has 499 500 Vatican 111 inserts a few previously omitted words into the dialogue at this point. Vatican 111 has Rav Yehudah respond "I did better!" The placement of this sentence at this point in the dialogue greatly impacts its rhetorical and narratological flow. See footnote 583 below.

164

SCENE IV ʿAt this point the MAN FROM NEHARDEʿA 501 enters502 and addresses RAV YEHUDAH:503 49 MAN FROM NEHARDEʿA: You call me a slave? Me, who descends from the royal Hasmonean dynasty?) sends him [a message:] 50 RAV YEHUDAH:504 This is what Shmuel said: Whoever says “I come from the Hasmonean dynasty” is a slave. 51 RAV NAḤMAN505: Do you not agree with the statement that Rav Abba made in the name of Rav Huna506 who said in the name of Rav?: Any scholar who teaches legal rulings and [a case] comes [before him] if [the legal ruling] was prior to the act [about which the ruling is being taught] then we listen to [the scholar.] If not, we do not listen to him! 52 RAV YEHUDAH: But there is Rav Matna who supports me! 53 RAV MATNA, having not seen Nehardeʿa for thirteen years, comes [to .(hahûʾ yômāʾ ,ההוא יומא) Nehardeʿa]on that very day 54 RAV YEHUDAH: Do you remember what Shmuel said when he was standing with one foot on the bank and one foot on the bridge? 507 55 RAV MATNA506F : This is what Shmuel said: Whoever says “I come 508 from the Hasmonean royal dynasty” is a slave.507F For there only remained [of the Hasmonean dynasty] a certain young girl who ascended to the roof and shouted: “Whoever says ‘I come from the Hasmonean royal dynasty’ is a slave." She fell from the roof and died.

SCENE V 56 They proclaim [the Nehardean man] a slave. 509 hahûʾ yômāʾ508F ) they tear up many ,ההוא יומא) On that very day 57 marriage contracts in Nehardeʿa.

501 Literally: Nehardean litigant. 502 Literally: “Went” (or in the present tense: “Comes.”) 503 Oxford 248 and Spanish print omit this line, leaving the reader to wonder at what point the Nehardean man arrived. Was he there all along? .(ămar lêh) אמר ליה Oxford 248 omits 504 505 It is unclear from the text whether it is Rav Naḥman or the man from Nehardeʿa who is talking. The content of the statement seems to imply that it is Rav Naḥman who is talking. 506 Munich 95 has Ravasi the son of Rav huna. Oxford 248, Munich 95, and Vatican 111 omit Rav as the source of this tradition. .(ămar lêh) אמר ליה Spanish Print omits 507 508 The following two sentences are omitted from Munich 95, Vatican 111, and Spanish Print. Oxford 248 and Venice Print read as Vilna. 509 These words are omitted from Oxford 248 and Spanish Print.

165

58 When [RAV YEHUDAH] exits [the city] they510 chase 511 after him [threatening] to stone him. 59 RAV YEHUDAH: If you remain silent then silence, but if not I will reveal regarding you that which Shmuel stated: Two families exist in Nehardeʿa; One is called The House of the Dove while the other is called The House of the Raven. 512 impure, tāmēʾ); pure) טמא And your mnemonic note is: 511F Impure is 60 513 is pure.512F ,a foundation wall) אטמא They throw the stones from their hands and 61 .(něhār malkāʾ ,נהר מלכא) ʾaṭmāʾ) forms in King River 514 62 RAV YEHUDAH513F announces in Pumpedita [that] Ada and Yonatan 515 516 are slaves; Yehudah514F the son of Papa is a bastard;515F Bati the son of rāmût rûḥāʾ), did not take his ,רמות רוחא) Tuvyah, with arrogance manumission document [upon being freed from slavery.]

Kiddushin 70 as a (Self) Reflection on Bavli's use of Language: A Local

Reading with an Emphasis on Language

The following analysis details the literary features and characteristics of this passage of the Bavli when viewed by a local reader. The purpose of this exercise it to

510 "Everyone" in Oxford 248. 511 Literally: go out 512 It is unclear whether this statement is a continuation of Rav Yehudah’s statement or an editor’s comment. 513 Spanish Print has a textual variant that completely changes the meaning of the sentence and therefore has great impact on the meaning of the story. Spanish Print reads: "One is qualified and one is disqualified. And your mnemonic note is: Impure is pure; pure is pure. šěkanṣîb). Vatican 111 and Spanish Print have this line but it is) שכנציב Munich 95 has Rav Naḥman in 514 (šěkansîb) שכנסיב šěkanṣîb) according to the Spanish Print and) שכנציב then repeated by Rav Naḥman in according to Vatican 11. These two witnesses also have Rav Naḥman proclaiming Yiṣḥaq (this word is not in Spanish Print) bar Papa to be a bastard. 515 Munich 95 has Yiṣḥhaq. 516 Munich 95 has Rava proclaiming this in Meḥuza.

166

demonstrate how this type of reading would change once the text is subsequently read against the backdrop of its immediate extended context and then, ultimately, as part of the entire Bavli complex.517 I present the three different reading modes of this chapter in this sequence for heuristic purposes. The Global Bavli (GB) reader, however, would experience these three readings as a hybrid and might move back and forth between them, finding meaning at the moments when their differences converge. When viewed as an independent literary unit, this lengthy narrative appears to depict two separate conflicts. Scenes 1 and 4 introduce and resolve a conflict between an unnamed man from Nehardeʿa and Rav Yehudah. Scenes 2 and 3 introduce and resolve a conflict between Rav Yehudah and Rav Naḥman. The source of the conflict in Scene 1 stems from the Nehardean man insulting the leading rabbinic figure in Pumpedita (Rav Yehudah) by derogatorily mispronouncing his name. The story thus begins with a play on words. The similarities and differences of words, as well as the symbols that they evoke, will become a dominant theme in this passage. Power, caste systems, social hierarchy, and jurisdiction are obvious themes of this 518 passage.517F When read as an isolated literary unit, Kiddushin 70 appears to be a story about a conflict between two sets of parties and the struggles for the dominion of two rabbinic locales. The first set of clashing parties is Rav Yehudah, the leading rabbinic figure of Pumpedita, and the man from Nehardeʿa. The second set of quarreling parties is Rav Yehudah and Rav Naḥman, the leading rabbinic figure of Nehardeʿa. A number of different types of ancillary characters, common stock figures in rabbinic tales, also make ,עבדא) šamʿêh); the slave ,שמעיה) their appearance throughout the narrative—the servant ,קטנה) šělîḥāʾ); and the minor ,שליחא) děbêthû); the emissary ,דביתהו) ʿabdāʾ); the wife .(dônag ,דונג) qěṭanâ), in the form of Rav Naḥman's daughter The literary feature that unifies this passage— and, as I will later argue, the entire Bavli—is to be found in the ways in which particular words are used throughout the course of the story's narration. Throughout this passage, words are used as bookends that force the local reader to engage at particular moments with the linguistic nuances through

517 Since the goal of this preliminary reading is to establish a framework through which to contrast subsequent readings, I must establish the parameters for the reader of this first reading. The parameters I ,closure). [For Fraenkel, see footnotes 14) סגירות establish are modeled after Jonah Fraenkel's notion of 15, and 17] Just as it would be impossible for a reader of this story to cull any meaning from it if that reader did not know what the words meant so too, for the purposes of this demonstration, one must assume that the reader of this story possesses a general knowledge of rabbinic literature and the rabbinic world as represented in that literature. However this first reading seeks to suppress any dialectical engagement with another rabbinic text. So for the purposes of this exercise, the reader of this text knows who the famous characters are and when they lived, references to Biblical texts, as well as knowledge of basic rabbinic sayings. For example, this reader would have knowledge of the rabbinic statement that one who calls his fellow by a nickname goes down to hell and never returns but would not necessarily engage with the stam's interpretation of that statement (Baba Metzia 58b). I admit that this is a slippery slope but the purpose of this exercise is heuristic. It only intends to set up a contrast to the reading strategy that I advocate later in the chapter. 518Wimpfheimer, Narrating the Law, 147-163.; and Elman, “Middle Persian Culture and Babylonian Sages: Accommodation and Resistance in the Shaping of rabbinic Legal Tradition,” 173-174.

167

rāmût rûḥāʾ) in lines 20 and) רמות רוחא which meaning is constructed. The doubling of 519 63,518F the significance of which I will later detail, is an example of the type of language game with which this narrative seeks to engage its reader. This facet of the Bavli's expressionary system, the use of linguistic echoes within a sugya, is also apparent in the ,man, gabrāʾ) is introduced) גברא distinction between the first moment that the word 520 great man, gabrāʾ rabâ), 519F and) גברא רבה when Rav Huna describes Rav Yehudah as a the repetition of that word at a moment when its original meaning is called into question 521 (great man, gabrāʾ rabâ) גברא רבה and ultimately effaced.520F Rav Huna had used the term

519 Line 20 אתרונגא RAV YEHUDAH: This is what Shmuel said: Whoever says rāmût ,רמות רוחא) citron, ʾatrûngāʾ) is one third filled with arrogance) citron, ʾetrôg) as it is called by the) אתרוג [rûḥāʾ). Either [use the term citron, ʾatrûgāʾ), [the term] used by [ordinary] people) אתרוגא rabbis or .(ʾîynšî ,אינשי) Line 63 RAV YEHUDAH announces in Pumpedita [that] Ada and Yonatan are slaves; Yehudah the son of Papa is a bastard; Bati the son of Tuvyah, rāmût rûḥāʾ), did not take his manumission ,רמות רוחא) with arrogance document [upon being freed from slavery.]

520 Line 12 [RAV HUNA:] There really is no need for you to go because you are a בי ) great man, however out of respect for the house of the presidency .bê něśîâ) [you should indeed] arise and go ,נשיאה

521 Lines 38 and 39

(děyasqāʾ ,דיסקא) RAV YEHUDAH] pulls out the subpoena document] from his chest [pocket] and shows it to [RAV NAḤMAN.] hā gabrāʾ) and behold the ,הא גברא) RAV YEHUDAH: Behold the man .(dasqāʾ ,דסקא) document

Yosef Ḥaim ben Eliyahu of Baghdad (known as the Ben Ish Ḥai, 1832-1909), in his work Ben Yehoyad'a, gavrāʾ) refers to. He assumes that it is not meant as a reference to Rav ,גברא) wonders whom this word Yehudah himself and therefore entertains the possibility that it is meant to refer to the anonymous Nehardean litigant. He disqualifies this possibility based on the fact that Rav Yehudah's adversary does not appear on the scene until later in the story. (However, see footnote 503 for a reading that works well with this hypothesis.) He therefore concludes that the reference is to an emissary of Rav Naḥman who delivered the summons to Rav Yehudah. [Joseph Ḥayyim ben Elijah al-Ḥakam, Ben Yehoyadaʻ; Beʼurim U- Ferushim ʻal Divre Agadah She-Diberu Ḥazal Be-Bavli Bavli (Yerushalayim: Yeshivat ha-Rabanim u-Vet ha-Keneset 'a.sh.'Ezra ha-Sofer, 724). Vol. 3. Kiddushin p. 54a.] The simple reading, without recourse to any other characters, would assume that it is Rav Yehudah who uses the word to refer to himself. In other words, Rav Yehudah says "behold the man," meaning "here I am." In such a case Rav Yehudah is forced 168

in line 12 as a reason for why Rav Yehudah would not have to submit to the rabbinic man, gabrāʾ) when he) גברא authority of Rav Naḥman; and Rav Yehudah uses the word does finally submit to Rav Naḥman's authority in line 39. ordinary] people, ʾîynšî) throughout]) אינשי The multiple appearances of the term this narrative highlight the central thematic consideration of this narrative: social hierarchy and the role language plays in its organization. The Nehardean man was in the ʾînšê) slaves. As a result, he himself is אינשי) "habit of calling "ordinary people 522 proclaimed a slave by Rav Yehudah.521F Rav Yehudah then highlights the class struggle at play in this drama when he attacks Rav Naḥman's seemingly pretentious use of ,כדאמרי אינשי) language by appealing to the way that "ordinary people" label objects 523 kěděʾāmrî ʾînšê).522F It is of note that the earliest printed edition of this Talmudic story, 524 (Spain 1485?),523F as well as all of the extant manuscripts, contains an additional ordinary] people, ʾînšê), one that does not appear in the]) אינשי occurrence of the word 525 Venice edition or any subsequent printings.524F The Spanish print further highlights the ordinary] people, ʾînšê) for]) אינשי class struggle at play in this narrative by substituting 526 ignoramus, ʿam hā’āreṣ) in line 34.525F According to this textual variant, when) עם הארץ Yalta convinces Rav Yehudah to stop debating Rav Naḥman and settle the court case, her rationale is, "so he does not make you equate you with the rest of the population [.i.e. ".(kěšʾār ʾînšê ,כשאר אינשי) [ordinary people Yet the use of language in Scene 2 of the drama demands extra attention. This oddest section in the exchange between Rav Yehudah and Rav Naḥman, where the use of

to describe himself to Rav Naḥman in opposite terms of the description given to him by Rav Huna. Rav Huna: You are a great man. Rav Yehudah to Rav Naḥman: I am merely a man. 522 Lines 7 and 8 PUMPEDITANS522:] This Nehardean man is in the habit of labeling .ʾîynšî) [as] slaves ,אינשי) people RAV YEHUDAH publicly proclaims the MAN FROM NEHARDEʿA a slave.

523 On the class difference elicited by the pronunciations of these words by Rav Yehudah and Rav Naḥman, see Elman, “Middle Persian Culture and Babylonian Sages: Accommodation and Resistance in the Shaping of rabbinic Legal Tradition,” 173-174. 524 The precise dating and locale of the printing of this incunabulum tractate is unknown. [See Heller, Printing the Talmud: A History of the Earliest Printed Editions of the Talmud, 20-21; Haim Z Dimitrovsky, S’Ridei Bavli: An Historical and Bibliographical Introduction (Jewish Theological Seminary, 1979), 15- 20. 525 See footnote 480 to line 34. 526 Line 34 can therefore either be read as Yalta's messenger saying, "Settle his business so that he does not שאר ignoramus, ʿam hā’āreṣ)," or "...so he does not make you equate you with) עם הארץ make you into an עם הארץ the rest of the population [i.e. ordinary people], šʾār ʾînšê)." Either way, the terms) אינשי ordinary people, šʾār ʾînšê) both represent) שאר אינשי ignoramus, ʿam hā’āreṣ) and ordinary people) .great man, gabrāʾ rabâ) in line 12) גברא רבה opposites of RavYehudah's initial portrayal as a

169

language is explicitly thematized, happens when Rav Yehudah first arrives at Rav Naḥman's house (lines 15-22). Why is it necessary, for the narrator, to have Rav Yehudah take issue with the appellations Rav Naḥman uses to designate four separate objects? Why are the fence, the chair, the citron, and the alcoholic beverage all necessary? Additionally, why are two alternative words (whether they be biblical, rabbinic, or common) provided with each objection?527 The reader would seemingly have nothing to gain by this repetition.528

The narration of the verbal jousting between Rav Yehudah and Rav Naḥman regarding the fence, the first prop used in the Kiddushin 70 drama, is presented in a slightly different manner that that of the other three props whose appellations are contested by the two rabbis. For the fence, Rav Yehudah objects to Rav Naḥman’s use měḥîyṣâ) or ,מחיצה) gûnděrîytāʾ, fence), in favor of rabbinic) גונדריתא ,of a Persian term maʿăqeh) words. Contrastingly, for the other three props—the chair, the ,מעקה) Biblical citron, and the alcoholic beverage— Rav Yehudah takes issue with Rav Naḥman's use of ,דאמור רבנן) language by wondering why Rav Naḥman did not use either a rabbinic kěděʾāmrî ʾînšê) to designate each ,כדאמרי אינשי) děʾămôr rabānān) or popular term object. gûnděrîytāʾ), is a hapax) גונדריתא ,The term Rav Naḥman uses to designate a fence legomenon in the Bavli. The word seems to be constructed of three components. The G D R). This root, whether used as part of a noun or verb, in) ג ד ר core component is both rabbinic and Biblical texts, means: fence; wall; hedge; to guard; to fence in; to surround with; limit; and control. When the root is used as a verb, the reflexive conjugation includes connotations of: raising oneself above others; arrogating power; and 529 acting presumptuously.528F The second component of the word is the addition of the nasal d). In this way, this word resembles Rav) ד g) and) ג n), which is inserted between the) נ 530 ,n).529F In this case) נ atrûngāʾ), and its inserted nasal) אתרונגא ,Naḥman’s term for citron G D R), the root then carries the additional) ג ד ר n) is inserted into the root) נ when a 531 יתא meaning of "lording over" someone.530F The third component of the word is the suffix

527 See Elman ibid. 528 Unless, of course, repetition is the point. The function of each of these name-challenged objects and how they work, for the global Bavli reader, to bring this local drama into dialogue with a number of other Bavli passages, will become clear once the "trigger word/ simultext" reading strategy is introduced later in the chapter. 529 Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Bavli Babli, and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, vol. II (Luzac, 1903), 215. 530 See Elman, “Middle Persian Culture and Babylonian Sages: Accommodation and Resistance in the Shaping of rabbinic Legal Tradition,” 174. 531 Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002), 294; Jastrow, A Dictionary of the 170

(-îtāʾ), which signals a diminutive form of the word's root. Although all of these connotations work to highlight the themes of social hierarchy and rabbinic authority in gûnděrîytāʾ, fence) also serves a purely aesthetic, or) גונדריתא this passage, the word gûnděrîytāʾ, fence) act as a) גונדריתא poetic, function. The consonants in the word 532 dônag), the name given to Rav Naḥman’s daughter.531F) דונג chiastic mirror to The fence, as a prop, also elicits a notion that fits quite neatly into this story. In fence, měḥîyṣâ) is usually used in the context of) מחיצה the Bavli, the Rabbinc term 533 marking domains and, therefore, dominion.532F The reference to the Biblical term for maʿăqeh), foreshadows events in Scene 4, when the young girl falls from the) מעקה ,fence fence, maʿăqeh) only appears once in the Bible, in a verse requiring) מעקה roof. The term a homebuilder to make a fence, the Bible states: “So that you should not put blood in 534 n p l) [from the roof].”533F (Deuteronomy 22:8) It is ,נ פ ל) your house when someone falls interesting to note that though one would expect from context that the girl in Scene 4 535— "jumps" from the roof 534F her suicide symbolizing the end to all legitimate genealogical 536 (nāplâ ,נפלה) "claims to the Hasmonean dynasty535F —the Bavli actually says that she "fell .fence, maʿăqeh) used in Scene 2) מעקה from the roof, echoing the Biblical Scene 3 also contains a series of textual nuances relating to the pronunciation of words, which highlight both the jurisdictional issues at stake and the power dynamic at play in the confrontation between Rav Yehudah and Rav Naḥman. These textual nuances, which are more aural than visual, play on the inability of these Rabbis to understand each other's speech. I present a reading of this scene in appendix C. for the purpose of highlighting what is to be gained when one imagines this dialogue as an oral performance rather than a written text.

Targumim, the Bavli Babli, and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, I:257. .dônag) in the Bavli) דונג Kiddushin 70 marks the only appearance of .ד נ ג and ג נ ד .i.e 532 533 Later in this Kiddushin passage (line 54), there is an image of Shmuel standing with one foot on the bank and one on the bridge which as a metaphor works to demonstrate the nature of Shmuel’s authority gûdāʾ) is also the word for wall. In) גודא ,over jurisdiction beyond Nehardeʿa. The word used for bank .(gûdāʾ) גודא měḥîṣâ) is defined as) מחיצה Baba Batra 2a the word (kî yīpōl hanōpēl mīmmenû) כִּי יִפֹּל הַנֹּפֵל מִמֶּנּוּ 534 535 This is especially the case if one reads this text together with its Baba Batra 3b parallel. (See footnote 577 below for the Baba Batra context.) 536 The Hasmoneans were one of four dynasties to rule Israel during the Second Temple period. When counting the days of the second temple, the Bavli divides the ruling parties into four groups: The Persians ruled for 34 years; the Greeks ruled for 180 years; the Hasmoneans ruled for 103 years; and the royal house of Herod ruled for 103 years. (‘Avoda Zarah 9a) The Bavli's dating system, when compared to those given by Josephus and others, does not account for nearly two hundred years of Persian rule.

171

Reading Kiddushin 70 in its Extended Context:

In order to capture certain central features of this passage it is necessary to further 537 contextualize its place in the Bavli.536F Two short discussions immediately precede this long drama in the Bavli. First the Bavli cites a statement that Rabbah bar Rav Ada said that Rav said: “Whoever marries a woman The for answerthe sake to of these money questions will have regarding children three who of the objects will become apparent once a trigger538 word driven global reading is měhûgānîm).”537F After a short discussion as to what ,מהוגנים) are not genetically fit becomesintroduced of later the wife’sin the wealthchapter. in However, this scenario, the appethe Bavliarance continues of one of with the objects,another passagethe regarding"fence," serves marriage a local and literary genetic function fitness involving within the Rabbah Kiddushin bar Rav70 narrative Ada: and therefore should be addressed here. And Rabbah the son of Rav Ada stated [and some say that it was Rabbi Sela who stated that Rav Hamnuna stated]: 539 Elijah the prophet) binds and God538F whips him who) אליהו שאינה הוגנת ) marries a woman who is inappropriate for him 540 šeʾênâ hôgenet lô).539F ,לו

Elijah) אליהו :And [a Baraita] taught: Regarding all of them the prophet) writes and God signs: “Woe is to him who contaminates his seed and impairs his family and marries a Elijah the) אליהו ”.woman who is inappropriate for him 541 prophet) binds him and God540F whips him. And anyone who [genealogically] disqualifies is himself [genealogically] disqualified. And he never speaks positively [of anyone.]

And Shmuel says: With his own blemish he [genealogically] disqualifies.

Elijah the prophet) mete out two) אליהו The Baraita has the team of God and separate punishments for the man who marries a woman who is not appropriate for him. (Elijah the prophet) אליהו .The first punishment is that of an official proclamation produces a document proclaiming this man to be deserving of “woe” for he has defiled Elijah the) אליהו .his progeny. God reinforces this proclamation with His signature prophet) then binds the man and God proceeds to whip him. If this Baraita had appeared

537 Wimpfheimer, Narrating the Law, 147-163.Wimpfheimer contextualizes this Kiddushin 70 narrative using the following passage about Elijah and God to different ends. 538 Perhaps related to the Greek ευγγενης, in which case it would mean “of best genealogy.” 539 Literally: The Holy One Blessed Be He 540 See footnote 538. 541 Literally: The Holy One Blessed Be He

172

in the Bavli prior to, or instead of, the statement of Rabbah the son of Rav Ada then it would not seem to have had any surprising features. The act of whipping accompanied by a document substantiating or recording this physical act would merely be seen by the reader as two parts of one punishment. However, once Rabbah the son of Rav Ada statement is introduced, the two types of punishment (physical and verbal) contained in the Baraita are brought into contrast. What is the relationship between the physically violent elements of binding and whipping and the verbal element that accompanies it. What precisely is added to the punishment by the proclamation of “Woe?” In addition to Elijah the prophet) in) אליהו the binary of the rhetorical and the physical, the presence of this passage is a bit striking and therefore alerts the reader to two separate aspects of the 542 Elijah the prophet) restricts the) אליהו physical violence: restriction and whipping.541F 543 offender’s space and only then does God smite him.542F Scene 1[of the elaborate Kiddushin 70 drama presented earlier] begins a long story that engages the statements, ideas, and dichotomies found in both the Baraita and Shmuel’s addendum to that Baraita. Shmuel has introduced what is known in the field of psychology as "projection." According to Shmuel, the derogatory names that people call other people merely reveal deep truths about themselves. The story begins in the slaughterhouse in Pumpedita, with the use of word play and irony to reinforce Shmuel’s dictum. The Nehardean man, without any regard to the other customers ahead of him in line, blurts out: “Give me meat!” He then proceeds to call Rav Yehudah a glutton while his own acts and language demonstrate that it is he who is in fact the glutton. This foreigner, as we later find out, holds himself to be genealogically deserving of high social regard: when he is told to give precedence to a servant ahead of him on line, he proceeds to call into question the authority of Rav Yehudah, the man the servant represents. The yěḥezqēl/šěwîsqʾēl) alerts) יחזקאל/שויסקאל) fact that our story begins with a play on words the reader not only to the importance of naming as a mode of enacting or unseating power but also to how the very words that one chooses to use also feature in the domination and dominion game. The relationship between naming and domination is an old one in the rabbinic imagination, as naming was the first act performed by the primordial Adam, one 544 that established his dominion over animals.543F

542 According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word "violence," when physical, has both connotations: the exercise of physical force so as to inflict injury; and forcibly interfering with personal freedom. [J. Simpson and E. Weiner, Oxford English Dictionary, 20 vols., Har/Cdr. (Oxford University Press, USA, 2009).] 543 Moulie Vidas further expands the context of this passage from the beginning of the chapter (69a) all the way through 72b. Vidas see all of these pages as a single discussion and included all of this material in his analysis. In doing so, Vidas highlights some interesting points about our passage that would be lost if one Elijah) אליהו were to merely read it in isolation. Literarily, the close of the passage extended by Vidas has the prophet) once again using restrictive violence when he is imagined as enforcing genealogical purity by leading people away in chain gangs. [Vidas, “The Bavli’s Discussion of Genealogy in Qiddushin IV.”] This statement on 72b provided a nice bookend to unify these six pages and highlight that they are indeed on long literary unit. Later, I will argue that the Bavli's use of words works to unify the entire two-million- word book. 544 Genesis 2:20.

173

When the events of the slaughterhouse are related to Rav Yehudah, he immediately puts the Nehardean man under a ban. It seems a bit clumsy, from a narrative standpoint, when the Pumpeditans, while reporting those events to Rav Yehudah, make a second independent charge against the Nehardean. They claim that he commonly calls people slaves. Rav Yehudah promptly responds by proclaiming the Nehardean man a slave. As the story progresses it becomes apparent that it is the charge of slavery rather than the ban that is the central issue leading to the court case between the Nehardean and יחזקאל/שויסקאל Rav Yehudah. In fact, one wonders whether the narrator’s use of the (yěḥezqēl/šěwîsqʾēl) word play introduces comedy at the expense of the smooth logical narrative flow of events. This same struggle with smooth logical narration manifests itself later in the story when Rav Yehudah is asked by Rav Naḥman to justify both his placement of the man under a ban and his proclaiming the man a slave. A telling textual variant in that part of the story, Scene 3, helps explain why the narrator introduces both of these elements, the ban and slavery, into the story. Lines 43 and 44, when Rav Naḥman asks Rav Yehudah why he did not whip the Nehardean man and Rav Yehudah responds that he in fact did better, do not exist in the first printed edition of the Bavli. In fact, this discrepancy is the only significant difference between the text of the story in the Vilna edition and that of the first printed edition of the Bavli. If we are to read Scene 3 according to first printed edition, then the text flows smoothly. Rav Yehudah is asked why he placed the man under a ban and he responds that the man pained a rabbinic emissary. He is then asked why he called the man a slave and he explains the Baraita and Shmuel’s accompanying theory of projection. 545 At first glance, not only do lines 43 and 44544F break up the narrative flow of the story but they also leave the source-critical reader suspicious that the narrator has clumsily blended together two independent stories, one involving Rav Yehudah’s attendant in a slaughterhouse and the other involving a man from Nehardeʿa whom Rav Yehudah proclaims a slave. Perhaps the version of the text that is manifested in the Vilna edition of the story did indeed evolve from two independent literary traditions. However, what is important for my analysis of this story is what happens from a literary point of view both elements, the ban and slavery, are part of the narrative. The inclusion of lines 43 and 44 in the Vilna edition redirects the reader to what is at stake in this story. In line 43, Rav Naḥman argues that if this Nehardean man had indeed pained his servant, then he was deserving of the most severe rabbinic penalty, lashes. In line 44, Rav Yehudah explains that being placed under a ban is actually a more severe penalty than lashes. In שמתא ,order to understand his point it is necessary to examine the nature of a rabbinic ban š m t), which is a) ש מ ת šamatāʾ). “Ban” is perhaps the wrongto use to describe the verb)

545 (RAV NAḤMAN:) [In that case] you should have whipped him—as Rav whipped a person who aggravated a rabbinic appointee. (RAV YEHUDAH:) I did better than that to him.

174

rabbinic punishment more about forbidding physical proximity with the one who has been placed under the ban than forbidding verbal communication.546 Whereas the punishment of lashes involves the physical domination of the rabbis inflicting violence on the recipient, being placed under a ban, in contrast, involves the rhetorical domination of the rabbis. However, at the same time, a ban is also an exercise of physical domination. Although a ban does not restrict the movement of the offender, it does restrict the proximity to which others may be in relation to him. It is as if the offender has an imaginary boundary (of four cubits) between him and all others. For Rav Yehudah, the rhetorical measure of ban placement, a measure whose end result is physical restriction, is greater than the physical restriction of binding, whose end result is the physical violence of lashes. How would Rav Yehudah fit his proclamation of slavery into the hierarchy of penalties? According to the two lines appearing in the Vilna edition (43 and 44), Rav Yehudah considers ban placement to be a greater punishment than lashes. Placing the Nehardean in a virtual prison for an extended period of time through the mechanism of a verbal device is a harsher punishment than momentarily whipping him. Proclaiming the Nehardean a slave is also a verbal mechanism. However, in contradistinction to ban placement, it has very little effect in the physical world. Rav Yehudah is not making the Nehardean an actual slave but is merely announcing that his caste status has changed for the purposes of whom he may or may not marry. While it is difficult to ascertain how Rav Yehudah weighs ban placement against the proclamation of slave status as a means of punishment, it is clear how the Nehardean man felt on the matter. Although it appears from lines 41 and 45 that both issues were brought up in the subpoena document, it is only the matter of slavery that is brought up when the Nehardean man himself enters in Scene 4. While Rav Yehudah’s ban placement does not carry any weight beyond the physical boundaries of Pumpedita, the title of slave, in contrast, has ramifications even in Nehardeʿa. By the same token, Rav Naḥman’s summons does not carry any rabbinic weight in Pumpedita. It is only Rav Naḥman’s relationship, through the exilarchate, to the power of the ruling Persians that motivates Rav Yehudah to travel to Nehardeʿa to settle the matter. The reason why the Nehardean takes greater exception to being called a slave has to do with a theme that runs throughout this entire passage: the relationship between both speech and physical domination to authority.

546 When Rabbi Eliezer is placed under a ban in the story of the Oven of ‘Akhnai (Baba Metsia 59b) Rabbi ‘Akiva is seen talking freely with him albeit from a distance of four cubits. It should, however, be noted that there are a number of different terms used for a ban in the Bavli and that various legal and narrative descriptions of people placed in a ban present differing accounts of exactly how a ban is supposed to play out in reality. Shevuot 41a presents an interesting situation where the administering of lashes is the mechanism for ending a ban. Rashi there points to a passage containing the fuller context for Rav’s ban. Kiddushin 12b lists seven infractions for which Rav administered lashes. The first five relate to either marriage or divorce, the sixth is the one quoted at Kiddushin 70b, regarding a man who pains a rabbinic emissary, and the seventh is regarding a man that allows himself to remain under a ban for thirty days. It is unclear whether Rav’s lashes also act to automatically lift the ban in the Kiddushin 12b context.

175

Another interesting feature of the way rhetoric is used in this passage can be found in how Rav Naḥman and Rav Yehudah negotiate their own struggle for rabbinic authority. In Kiddushin 70, Rav Yehudah tries using rhetorical means to resist Rav Naḥman’s power, which lies in his relationship with the government and the threat of physical domination. When Rav Yehudah quotes rabbinic authority in his quarrel with Rav Naḥman, he only quotes one Rabbi, Shmuel. In this way he attempts to control Rav Naḥman using the only means at his disposal, the shared acceptance of a greater rabbinical authority than their own (Rav Yehudah and Rav Naḥman are both students of both Rav and Shmuel). While Rav Yehudah quotes the Suran Rav and the Nehardean Shmuel in equal proportion throughout the Bavli, Rav Naḥman quotes Shmuel three times as often as he quotes Rav. The Pumpeditan outsider, Rav Yehudah, quotes Shmuel to Rav Naḥman because the "words" of Shmuel can control Rav Naḥman, a rabbi who only maintains physical dominance over Rav Yehudah through his relationship to the government. Interestingly enough, when Rav Nahman tries to use rabbinic authority over Rav Yehudah, he quotes Rav and not Shmuel.547

The Trigger Word/Simultext Reading Effect

It is quite appropriate to employ a Bavli story that explicitly thematizes the importance of word selection, a story that contains an abundance of rare words and hapax legomena, to detail the effect of the Bavli’s own word selection on its implied reader. As previously mentioned, the Bavli's implied reader—the GB reader— is familiar with the entire book to the extent that all obscure references sprinkled throughout the Bavli are already known to this reader. Additionally, the GB reader operates with a heightened awareness when encountering the presence of rare terminology. In turn, the GB reader understands this rare terminology through its contextual usage in the other Bavli locations in which the rare terminology recurs. I call these rare words or phrases "trigger words"; and I call those Bavli passages where they recur "simultexts." Kiddushin 70 contains many rarely used that are also found, in various combinations, in other Bavli passages. These rare words, when encountered by the GB reader, act as triggers to activate the other Bavli passages in which they appear, the "simultexts."548

speech, šûtāʾ) as jurisdiction, he encourages Rav) שותא Once Rav Naḥman introduces the notion of 547 Yehudah to exercise physical dominance and lash the Nehardean, and this, by quoting the Suran Rav. It was the Suran Rav Huna who initially alerted Rav Yehudah to the notion of physical domination. Later in the story when Rav Naḥman seeks to rebut Rav Yehudah, he uses Rav’s ruling that a rabbinic quote is only effective when revealed prior to a court case.

548 Trigger words may also be found in close proximity to the simultext rather than within it. The significance of this fact will be addressed later.

176

local reader to some theme or emphasis, otherwise unpronounced. The trigger words and simultexts consequently serve the function of highlighting, complementing, complicating, and effacing ideas and subject matter found in the local passage. In the instance of Kiddushin 70, the activated simultexts all serve to alter the story’s focus. Without the simultexts, Kiddushin 70 appears to be a story about the confrontation between Rav Yehudah and the Nehardean man. The simultexts all serve to shift the reader’s focus to an unspoken, yet deeper, conflict between Rav Naḥman and the Nehardean man. The nature of this conflict unfolds as the simultexts are activated. Before elaborating on the exact nature of the trigger word/simultext reading effect as it shapes Kiddushin 70 I will first provide a short example demonstrating its mechanics—how the global Bavli reader is effected when a Shavuot 30 simultext is activated by the presence of trigger words at Kiddushin 70. I will first describe what criteria could be used to identify the presence of textual characteristics that would activate this process for an imagined GB reader. I will then address what repercussions the ubiquity and recurrence of these textual characteristics throughout the Bavli—and consequently, the pervasiveness of the effect's presence in the GB reader's experience of the Bavli—have for our understanding of how the Bavli, as we know it, was constructed. The scale of the trigger word/simultext reading effect, as it relates to Kiddushin 70, will become evident once I later provide four additional examples of how trigger words shape the experience of Kiddushin 70's GB reader. In doing so, I will demonstrate how seven different Bavli passages collaborate to form a textual network that not only alters the meaning of the Kiddushin 70, as understood when read in isolation, but works to foreground the many muted cultural forces at play in the passage.

Shavuot 30: A Preliminary Demonstration of the Trigger Word/Simultext Reading Effect

These simultexts, when activated by trigger words in the local passage being read, have the effect of alerting the

177

Simultexts: Kiddushin 70 Shavuot 30

šěrê lêh lěmîšrāʾ tīgrêh bětîgrêh למישרא שרי ליה בתיגריה תיגריה settle his to settle his dispute dispute

měḥanpî lěḥanôpê לחנופי מחנפי to favor to favor Trigge r ʿam hā’āreṣ ʿam hā’āreṣ Words: עם הארץ עם הארץ ignoramus ignoramus

šamʿêh šamʿêh שמעיה שמעיה his servant his servant

děbêthû děbêthû דביתהו דביתהו wife wife

An example of how the trigger word/simultext mechanism takes effect can be found in the way that the trigger words listed in the chart above work to activate the Shavuot 30 simultext for the Kiddshin 70 reader. The Kiddushin 70 triggers that work in šěrê lêh) שרי ליה תיגריה combination to activate the Shavuot 30 passage are the expression měḥanpî rabānān) מחנפי רבנן אהדדי tīgrêh, settle his dispute) coupled with the expression š r y) and) שרי ʾahadādê, Rabbis show favor to one another). The combination of the verb tîgrāʾ), meaning to resolve a dispute, is found in only five other locations) תיגרא the noun ḥ n f) is only used a handful of times in the) ח נ פ in the Bavli. Additionally, the verb ḥ n f) in close proximity to the) ח נ פ Bavli to denote favoritism. Shavuot 30 has the verb .tîgrāʾ), making it a simultext) תיגרא š r y) and the noun) שרי combination of the verb When the reader of Kiddushin 70 encounters these trigger words, the Shavuot 30 simultext—which has Rav Naḥman being encouraged by one rabbi to show favor to a third rabbi in a court case—becomes activated. Here, in Shavuot 30, we have the same Rav Naḥman being encouraged to settle a dispute and worried about issues of nepotism. Additionally, this Shavuot 30 court case, involving Rav Naḥman, appears immediately following a discussion as to whether or not the testimony of a woman is valid. In that 178

549 discussion, the idea that a woman should not have a public role is introduced.548F The Shavuot passage also has several characters familiar to readers of the Kiddushin passage: ,děbêthû) דביתהו šammāʿāʾ, servant); and) שמעא ;(ʿam hā’āreṣ, ignoramous) עם הארץ the wife). All of these characters appear, in Shavuot 30, in situations involving hierarchy and 550 primacy in the dealings of a court.549F With the Shavuot 30 simultext activated, the global Bavli reader encounters Kiddushin 70 with an added attention placed on these marginalized characters and their roles in court cases. This is especially the case as it concerns the validity of the testimony of women, which is the overt theme of Shavuot 30. Because of the Shavuot 30 simultext, the reader of Kiddushin 70 has a heightened awareness of the irony of Rav Yehudah’s 551 initial objection to the use of women (and even a minor) in lines 24 through 26.550F Rav Yehudah's court case is only resolved through the use of the testimony of a woman, and at that, a minor. Rav Yehudah only successfully establishes the slave status of the Nehardean man by citing the testimony of the young Hasmonean girl who jumped from the roof and shouted: “Whoever says ‘I come from the Hasmonean royal dynasty’ is a slave." It is in this manner that trigger word and simultexts operate on the GB reader to alter the focus, and therefore meaning, of whatever Bavli passage is being read. This shift in focus from the characters of Rav Naḥman, Rav Yehudah, and the Nehardean man to the other ancillary, yet marginalized, characters will intensify, and take on greater significance, once the other simultexts are introduced

549An interpretation of Psalms 45:14.

550 The idea, put forth in the Shavuot 30 simultext, that the wife of a scholar is equivalent to a scholar—an idea which is introduced when Rav Huna’s wife is called before the court of Rav Naḥman—contrasts nicely with an idea put forth in yet another simultext discussed later in this chapter. Berakhot 51b has ‘Ulla telling Rav Naḥman that a woman is only blessed through her husband. In addition, the only other time the ḥāvēr, scholar)” is mentioned in the Bavli is at) חבר ḥāvēr, scholar) is just like a) חבר phrase “the wife of hākî ʾămar šěmûʾēl, thus) הכי אמר שמואל Avodah Zarah 39a. In that instance, the phrase introduced by hākî ʾămar šěmûʾēl, thus stated Shmuel) appears less than 30) הכי אמר שמואל stated Shmuel). The phrase times sprinkled throughout the Bavli, yet it appears 7 times in Kiddushin 70 alone.

551 dônag, [presumably,] Rav Naḥman’s) דונג RAV NAḤMAN: Let daughter) come give us [something] to drink. RAV YEHUDAH: This is what Shmuel said: It is forbidden to make use of a woman. (RAV NAḤMAN:) [But] she is [just] a minor! (RAV YEHUDAH:) Shmuel explicitly said: One may make no use of a woman whatsoever, neither adult nor minor.

179

The Superstam as Global Bavli Reader

As argued throughout this dissertation, if the Stam represents the people or literary activity that works to control the sugya, then the Superstam represents the people or literary activity that works to undermine that control. The Superstam, acting at a moment in time when the basic structure of the sugya has already been fixed, achieves this end by introducing individual words or phrases that direct the reader to other sugyot within the Bavli. The new relationship between the two sugyot work to subvert the meaning fostered by either or both of the sugyot when read in isolation. The GB reader is affected by the introduction of these new words or phrases because this reader is attuned to the new relationship fostered between the two sugyot. I introduce the GB reader as a heuristic device designed to understand how the Bavli conveys meaning to the very reader it constructs. I also utilize the concept of a GB reader to try to understand how the Bavli text reached its final form. Of course, "final form" is a misnomer when talking about the Bavli because, even today, the Bavli text remains somewhat in flux.552 However, by "final form," I refer to a point in the past history of the text where the Bavli's mode of meaning conveyance transfers from the control of the Stam to the counter-control of the Superstam553—that period in history, (though I conceive of it as a slow and gradual process taking place over hundreds of years), where the Bavli's

552 The recent publication of the Oz we-Hadar version of the Talmud (Mahadurat Friedman, Jerusalem 2006) highlights this fact. Although the Oz we-Hadar version is based the Vilna Shas, the most culturally dominant version of the Talmud for the last 120 years, it nonetheless edits the Vilna edition, making numerous changes to the text without marking those changes nor providing justification for them. One might not even notice that they were not, in fact, reading the Vilna text were in not for a brief note in the preface to the first volume stating that changes were made to the text of the Vilna Shas when mistakes in the Vilna edition were noticed by the Oz we-Hadar's editors. [A number of factors led to the domination of the Vilna Shas (Brothers and Widow Romm, 1880s, Lithuania) over all other versions of the Bavli. The fact that it post-dated earlier editions certainly contributed to its acceptance. Its late date allowed for the correction of obvious typographical errors found in earlier editions; and the progress of printing technology made for a more legible typeset . However, a number of other factors contributed to its dominance over the next 120 years. First, it was printed in Vilna, a place and culture that, until recently, has widely been considered the historical epicenter of Talmud study, where Talmud study is imagined to have reached heights and cultural dominance to an extent not seen since that culture that itself produced the Talmud. This city was the home of the Vilna Gaon (Eliyahu the son of Shlomo Zalman, d. 1790), whose text critical work had gained near unanimous acceptance. Second, was the inclusion of many commentaries and super- commentaries, previously unpublished, or only published as separate works, within the bindings of each tractate of the Vilna Shas. Third, was the influence of the groundbreaking work of Raphael Natan Neta Rabbinovicz's groundbreaking work, Dikdukei Sopherim, on those involved in the production and editing of the Vilna Shas. Rabbinovicz had travelled the world and collected a wide number of variant print and manuscript versions of the Talmud, some previously unavailable. Over a twenty year period, he published 16 volumes (Munich, 1867-1897) detailing all of the textual variants found in these versions of the Talmud. Fourth, and most importantly, was the use of photo offset in the reproduction of the Vilna Shas. For the first time a single Talmud edition was able to be reproduced and published simultaneously in multiple locales.]

553 For the definition of these two terms, see my extended discussion in the introduction to this dissertation. 180

interconnectedness, self-referentiality, and mode of linguistic expression combine to make it a text whose meaning is conveyed at the level of the book rather than at the level of the sugya. Of course, my two heuristic purposes for imagining the GB reader are inextricably related, and act as feedback mechanisms for one another. This is so because it is only the gradual process of GB readers performing Super-stammitic activity that leads to the Stam's loss of control over the meaning conveyed by a sugya to future GB readers. The Bavli's self-referentiality, itself a product of the Superstam, is central to the experience of the GB reader. Sometimes this self-referentiality is explicit. (An example of such an occurrence was the subject of the third chapter of this dissertation.) However, at other times the Bavli's self-referentiality is the result of the Bavli's use of rare terminology, words or phrases that encourage the GB reader to understand their symbolic capital in terms of their general usage throughout the Bavli. I call these words (or the phrase) trigger words. Assessing the imagined impact of trigger words on my heuristically constructed GB reader is certainly not a science. I therefore provide parameters, or guidelines, through which a non-GB reader can imagine the impact of trigger words on the GB reader. The model works as follows. (It is important to keep in mind that the Bavli is made up of close to two million words.) If a word appears a mere two or three times in the Bavli, then it is certainly a trigger word. However, if a word appears five or ten times in the Bavli, then it must operate in concert with other similarly rare words in order to activate a simultext. For a combination to be meaningful, there must be an inverse relationship between the frequency of the rare words and the number of those rare words required to form a combination. Therefore, if a Talmud passage contains two words, each appearing a mere five times in the Bavli, they would activate a simultext also containing those two words. However, if a passage only contains words appearing eight times in the Bavli, then a simultext would only be activated when a combination of three of those words are found. This model allows for many permutations and each case should be judged on its ability to convince. In order to convincingly demonstrate my theory, I have selected a network of Bavli passages linked by an overwhelming number of rare words or phrases. My analysis of the interconnection between those passages is visually demonstrated through the chart below. The purpose of the chart is provide a visualization of the effect of trigger words on simultexts on the GB reader. My reader is encouraged to refer back to the chart as each new simultextual reading is introduced. I will additionally provide a table, detailing the relevant trigger words and simultexts, before the start of each new reading.

181

Another factor that is central to my model is how proximity, contiguity, and context relate to the trigger word/simultext system. It is my contention that the construction of the Bavli is the result of a feedback mechanism. The Bavli is fashioned by the very readers fashioned by the Bavli. In other words, it is only the Superstam as GB reader who is the force that constructs the Bavli by creating linguistic associations between contrasting sugyot formerly controlled by the Stam. The Superstam creates these associations by strategically inserting, or replacing, key words or phrases. In doing so, the Superstam exerts its influence over the meaning conveyed to future GB readers. The future GB readers, in turn, continue this Super-stammaitic literary activity by doing the same. I arrive at this conception of the Bavli's construction by building upon the work of Shamma Friedman. Friedman would probably account for the recurrence of rare terminology in the Kiddushin 70 passage by arguing that the story is merely a late construction that borrows this terminology from other previously constructed Bavli

182

passages.554 As such, Kidushin 70 is formed by an individual moment of concrete design by an author who borrowed all of its content from those other Bavli passages that I have labeled the simultexts. The essential difference between a source critical conception of this process, like Friedman's, and my own is that while the source critic conceives of the process to be unidirectional and momentary—the product of a single act of concrete design—I believe the process to be bidirectional and recurring. No one sugya is the source for another sugya in the Bavli. The common language shared by both sugyot is the product of a feedback mechanism, with each sugya being the source for the other. I reach this conclusion by appealing to the fact that trigger words often appear in close proximity to simultexts rather than within them. The fact that many of the Kiddushin 70 trigger words appear contiguous to, rather than within, the passages I label simultexts makes little difference to the GB reader—once a simultext is activated the reader absorbs all of its contents, context, and meaning. For the source critic, however, it highlights the risk involved in assuming that the sugya containing the most rare terminology is the later one. Such a supposition implies a finite and unidirectional movement from the main earlier literary source to a later product. This perspective on the literary construction of the Bavli is grounded in sugya-centric analysis. It does not account for the literary composition of the Bavli as a whole. Once the notion of trigger words found in close proximity to, rather than within, simultexts is introduced, a source- critical approach should see the compositional work of the Bavli as bidirectional. If one passage receives language from another passage and its surroundings it is then just as likely to send its own language back to the initial passage and its surroundings, creating a more unified whole. Although Friedman’s method also allows for bidirectional influence, the type of bidirectional movement that Friedman conceives of is the sum of two unidirectional moments of influence. The type of bidirectionality that I propose assumes a more dynamic synchronic relationship between a number of texts that influence each other, over and over, to the point that discerning which text is the original and which one is product of that original is no longer possible nor pertinent.

Kiddushin 70's War of Words

From a narratological perspective, the reader of Scene 2 (summarized in the footnote below)555 is struck with two oddities in the construction of this part of the

554 Friedman makes such an argument regarding a Bavli passage located at Baba Kamma 117. (see footnote 65.)

555 SCENE II: Rav Yehudah arrives at the home of Rav Naḥman to find the latter working in his garden. Rav Yehudah pounces. “A communal leader must never do manual labor in public…thus said Shmuel!” Rav Naḥman, unaware of the identity of his antagonist points out that it is only a small fence that he busies himself with. 183

drama. The first question is why are all four of these name-challenged objects necessary? Would the narrator have lost anything if it did not mention any particular one of the four props? What do the fence, chair, fruit, and drink add? The second question is what does the introduction of Rav Naḥman’s wife and daughter add to the story? By working our way backward through the name-challenged objects following the trigger words to the simultexts and back again, the answers to these questions are revealed and a new logic to the story emerges.

The Drink:

alcoholic) אנבגא RAV NAḤMAN: [Please] drink some beverage, ʾanběgāʾ). alcoholic) איספרגוס RAV YEHUDAH: Do you despise אנפק beverage, ʾîspargôs) as it is called by the rabbis, or (alcoholic beverage, ʾanpak) [the term] used by [ordinary] ?(ʾîynšî ,אינשי) people

Rav Yehudah jumps at the opportunity to correct Rav Naḥman’s choice of words and demands to know why Rav Naḥman did not call the fence by its Biblical or rabbinic designations. Ever the host, Rav Naḥman offers Rav Yehudah a seat, a fruit, and an alcoholic beverage. In each instance Rav Yehudah attacks Rav Naḥman on the basis of an elitist non-rabbinic word choice to describe each of these objects. In one case Rav Naḥman’s word choice is deemed arrogant by a statement quoted in the name of Shmuel. When Rav Naḥman introduces his daughter and wife – Donag and Yalta – his ignorance of Shmuel’s opinions about the usage of women is once again blasted by Rav Yehudah. Yalta intercedes between the rabbis and demands that Rav Naḥman resolve the case before he is deemed an ignoramus.

[This summary is a slightly altered version of the summary which appears in Zvi Septimus, “Trigger Words and Simultexts: The Experience of Reading the Bavli,” in Wisdom of Bat Sheva: in memory of Beth Samuels, ed. Barry S. Wimpfheimer (KTAV Pub. House, Inc., 2009), 168.]

184

Simultexts: Kiddushin 70 Berakhot 51 ʾisppargôs ʾîsppargôs (x2) אספרגוס (x2) איספרגוס alcoholic alcoholic beverage beverage Š D R + Š D R + mār (x3) mār (x2) ש ד ר + מר ש ד ר + מר (x3) (x2) send/sent + send/sent + Trigge r sir sir Words: Yalta ילתא Yalta ילתא anbbagāʾ něbbagāʾ, נבגא אנבגא wine wine hākî ʾămar hākî ʾămar , (x7) הכי אמר הכי אמר (x7) ([so-and-so] [so-and-so] stated thus stated thus

The fourth name-challenged object that appears in Kiddushin 70, the alcoholic beverage, acts together with several trigger words to activate the Berakhot 51 simultext. ʾîsppargôs), as) איספרגוס These trigger words are detailed in the chart above. The word alcoholic beverage, appears a mere five times in the Bavli, once in the Kiddushin passage 556 and three times at Berakhot 51a.555F It is not the three paragraphs at Berakhot 51a ʾisppargôs) that are important for our purposes but rather) אספרגוס containing the word the passage immediately following those two paragraphs. (This point is quite significant, as addressed above.) The passage immediately following the three which mention ʾisppargôs) contains several trigger words in combination that attract the) אספרגוס attention of the reader of Kiddushin 70. These trigger words are: the rare combination of 557 558 mar);556F mar; the character Yalta;557F) מר š d r) together with the honorific) ש ד ר the verb

556 Additionally, the Mishnah at Nedarim 6:10 has the word twice within the space of three words. In that instance, the word actually means "asparagus" and not a form of alcoholic beverage. 557 This combination only occurs 8 times in the Bavli. Half of those occurrences are in these two texts. 558 Yalta only makes 6 or 7 appearances throughout the Bavli. I treat four of those as simultexts throughout this chapter.

185

559 560 hākî ʾămar)559F to) הכי אמר něbbagāʾ)558F ; and the formulaic interjection of) נבגא the rare rebut a practice in a manner similar to the way the term is used in the Kiddushin 70 passage.

The Berakhot 51 Simultext:

[This following passage is preceded by three paragraphs, ʾisppargôs, alcoholic) אספרגוס all containing the word beverage).]

ʿûlāʾ ʾaqlāʿ) to the ,עולא אקלע) ʿUlla happened to come house of Rav Naḥman. He broke bread; said grace; and gave the cup of benediction to Rav Naḥman. Rav Naḥman lîšdār mar) the cup of ,לישדר מר) said to him: “Please send yaltāʾ).” ‘Ulla replied: “Thus ,ילתא) benediction to Yalta hākî ʾămar): The fruit of a ,הכי אמר) stated Rabbi Yoḥanan woman's body is blessed only from the fruit of a man's body, as it says, “He will also bless the fruit of your body.” It does not say the fruit of her body, but the fruit of your yaltāʾ) hears and gets up ,ילתא) body”…Meanwhile, Yalta in a passion and goes to the wine house and breaks four hundred containers of wine. Rav Naḥman said toʿUlla: 561 něšader lâ mar).”560F ,נשדר לה מר) Do send her another cup“ 562 yaltāʾ): “All this ,ילתא) ʿUlla sends 561F a message to Yalta ”.něbbagāʾ) of benediction ,נבגא) spilled wine] is the wine]

něbbagāʾ) are the same word. The former represents the Babylonian) נבגא anbbagāʾ) and) אנבגא 559 pronunciation of the word, while the latter represents the Palestinian pronunciation. Kiddushin 70 has the word being spoken by a Babylonian and therefore uses the Babylonian spelling of the word. Berakhot 51 has a Palestinian saying the word and therefore uses the Palestinian spelling. It is not uncommon for the Bavli to play with dialect in presenting dialogue and narrative. An example of this can be found in .děyasqāʾ) detailed above) דיסקא ṭasqāʾ), daska, and) טסקא Kiddushin 70’s use of the words

hākî ʾămar šěmûʾēl, thus stated Shmuel) is a phrase that dominates Kiddushin 70. It) הכי אמר שמואל 560 appears 7 times in the drama, which is around 25% of the phrase's total appearances in the Bavli. ‘Ulla, the hākî ʾămar) for his own rabbi in precisely) הכי אמר Palestinian student of Rabbi Yohanan, employs the term the same way that Rav Yehudah does in Kiddushin 70.

š d r) is used, making Rav Naḥman's suggestion more) ש ד ר Here the Paʿēl conjugation of the verb 561 [.conjugation for this verb; Jastrow does קל forceful. [Sokoloff does not account for a

.(š l ḥ) ש ל ח Here the verb used is 562

186

563 Yalta sends 562F a message back to ʿUlla: “From wanderers, ”.(kalmê ,כלמי) words; From rags, lice

In addition to trigger words, this passage has many features that are similar to Kiddushin 70. Both stories contain the following elements: (a) Yalta overhears a conversation about a guest sending her something (either a greeting or some wine); (b) A controversy is set off by Rav Naḥman’s insistence on an interaction between a guest and a female family member; (c) The guest justifies his sexist position by quoting legal dicta hākî ʾămar); (d) Yalta sends her message through a) הכי אמר preceded by the phrase messenger yet appears to hear the recipient's response. In fact, a source-critical approach to Kiddushin 70 would argue that the Yalta section of the Kiddushin text is actually an adaptation of Berakhot 51. In doing so, it would fail to explain how the two texts operate simultaneously on the reader to create meaning in the context of the Bavli, the book that this reader is actually reading. While the source critic might argue for a hierarchical, relationship between these two passages the GB reader experiences them synchronically. For the GB reader, the aesthetic of the Bavli is more than the sum of its diachronically related parts. Berakhot 51 highlights, for the reader of Kiddushin 70, that Yalta is the one to deliver the final word. The Berakhot 51 dialogue ends with Yalta’s enigmatic and derogatory statement with no response from ‘Ulla. As we will later see, this theme of the wife delivering the final word is at play in a number of Kiddushin 70’s simultexts. What is obvious in the Berakhot simultext but not so in the Kiddushin passage is that Yalta also represents a threat of physical violence. By destroying the wine barrels, Yalta demonstrates that she has control over her own wealth and that it is actually her husband, Rav Naḥman, who is blessed through her. Thus she, through her actions, negates ʿUlla's dictum (quoted in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan) that a woman is only blessed through a man. The final exchange in this story is a bit ambiguous and requires further explanation. What could Yalta possibly have meant when she said: “From wanderers, words; from ,כלמי) sěmarṭûṭê) and lice ,סמרטוטי) rags, lice?” What is the significance of rags 564 kalmê)?563F

Second Generation Simultexts: Niddah 20 and Shavuot 30 as Simultexts of Berakhot 51

.(š l ḥ) ש ל ח Here too the verb used is 563 564 For a different explanation of what this statement possibly means see Ilan, Mine and yours are hers. p 125. Ilan offers that this line is a reference to a proverb from Ben Sira. 187

Simultexts: Ketubot 60b-61a Kiddushin 70 Avodah Zarah 76 rāmût rûḥāʾ רמות רוחא arrogance ʾatrûgāʾ ʾatrûgāʾ ʾatrûgāʾ אתרוגא אתרוגא אתרוגא citron citron citron Yalta ילתא Yalta ילתא Trigge r Words: King Shapur שבור מלכא King Shapur שבור מלכא

Bati the son Bati the son בטי בר באטי בר טובי of Tuvi[ah] of Tuvi טוביה rāmût rûḥāʾ רמות רוחא arrogance

kalmê, lice) are trigger) כלמי sěmarṭûṭê, rags) and) סמרטוטי ,Both of these words sěmarṭûṭê, rags) points back to the Shevuot 30 simultext addressed) סמרטוטי .words 565 (ʾisppargôs, alcoholic beverage) אספרגוס earlier.564F As was the case with the trigger word sěmarṭûṭê, rags) does not appear within the actual simultext but) סמרטוטי ,at Berakhot 51a rather adjacent to it. As explained earlier, the appearance of trigger words contiguous to, but not within, simultexts highlights the literary nature of the Bavli, rather than the sugya, as a corpus constructed through myriads of moments of word placement rather than individual moments of concrete design. Additionally, such contiguous occurrences of trigger words encourage the global Bavli reader to not only read multiple individual passages in the Bavli together, but also to read those passages in their full and extended contexts. Additionally, by making an appearance in the Berakhot 51 simultext, the word sěmarṭûṭê, rags) further solidifies the connection between Kiddushin 70 and) סמרטוטי Shavuot 30. What drives Niddah 20b as a simultext of Berakhot 51, and through Berakhot 51, (kalmê, lice) כלמי .(kalmê, lice) כלמי a simultext of Kiddushin 70, is the trigger word makes a seemingly arbitrary appearance in the Niddah simultext in a section immediately 566 kalmê, lice) story deals with the mother of) כלמי following a story about Yalta.565F The King Shapur who himself is a prominent figure in a number of simultexts that will

sěmarṭûṭê, rags) only appears) סמרטוטי Aside from the Berakhot 51 and Shavuot 30 simultexts, the word 565 four other times in the Bavlis.

566 Once again, it is a trigger word found in close proximity to the simultext, rather than within it, that highlights the complex nature of the shaping of the Bavli into its final form, a form that elicits the reader to read simultextually, in the full and extended context of the simultexts.

188

kalmê, lice) in the entire) כלמי examined later. The only two appearances of the word Bavli are at Berakhot 51b and Niddah 20b . The appearance of Yalta at Niddah 20b not only further associates Berakhot 51 and Niddah 20b but also strengthens the network of connection to Kiddushin 70 and Shavuot 30 as well. ʿUlla also happens to make an 567 appearance in the Niddah 20 passage immediately preceding the introduction of Yalta.566F The Niddah 20 simultext thematizes the rabbinic dominance over women and Yalta’s exemption from this dominance. A number of women are reported to have brought their underwear to Rabbis who smell them to decide whether or not they are clean from menstrual blood. This is the prototypical image of rabbinic dominance over women. Yalta, however, brings her blood to one Rabbi who, incidentally, does not smell it and deems it impure. Yalta then completely disregards this Rabbi’s ruling and brings it to another Rabbi who declares it pure. Yalta, in a way, mocks the notion of her 568 subservience to rabbinic authority.567F Accordingly, this Niddah 20 simultext works to highlight the position of Yalta in the rabbinic hierarchy, how she perceives herself in relation to those Rabbis, and consequently how they, as producers of this story, perceive her dominance over them. Her short appearance in the Kiddushin passage has her in a similar role. Additionally, the power Rav Naḥman receives through his marriage to her underlies the entire Kiddushin 70 drama.

The Fruit:

.(citron, ʾatrûngāʾ) אתרונגא RAV NAḤMAN: [Please] eat a RAV YEHUDAH: This is what Shmuel said: Whoever citron, ʾatrûngāʾ) is one third filled with) אתרונגא says [rāmût rûḥāʾ). Either [use the term ,רמות רוחא) arrogance אתרוגא citron, ʾetrôg) as it is called by the rabbis or) אתרוג (citron, ʾatrûgāʾ), [the term] used by [ordinary] people .(ʾîynšî ,אינשי)

567 Although the phrase "ʿUlla happened to come" appears in the Bavli around 15 times, there are only three ʿûlāʾ ʾaqlāʿ), twice at Niddah 20 and once at Berakhot) עולא אקלע occurrences of the phrase being spelled 51b.

568 Charlotte Fonrobert counters this type of reading of Niddah 20b with one that has the Bavli employ Yalta as a mechanism for expressing its own difficulties regarding male rabbis' control of women’s menstrual blood. [Charlotte Elisheva Fonrobert, Menstrual Purity: rabbinic and Christian Reconstructions of Biblical Gender (Stanford University Press, 2002), pp. 118-127.

189

Bati the son Bati the son בטי בר באטי בר טובי of Tuvi[ah] of Tuvi טוביה rāmût rûḥāʾ רמות רוחא arrogance

,אתרוגא) ,The third name-challenged object in our Kiddushin 70 drama, the citron ʾatrûgāʾ) works together with various other trigger words throughout the passage to point the reader to two separate simultexts: Avodah Zarah 76b and Ketubot 60b-61a. Contrary to Rav the presentation of the argument between Rav Naḥman and Rav Yehudah's argument as to how to name the fence, the chair, and the alcoholic beverage, the ,ʾatrûngāʾ) אתרונגא .Kiddushin 70 passage uses three similar sounding names for the fruit 569 (ʾatrûgāʾ, citron) אתרוגא citron) is a hapax legomenon in the Bavli.568F The Aramaic ʾetrôg, citron), is itself quite) אתרוג n), rather than the Hebrew) נ without the inserted rare in the Bavli; and the majority of the Bavli contexts in which the Aramaic version of the word appears relate to kingship. rāmût rûḥāʾ), meaning) רמות רוחא As mentioned earlier in the chapter, the term arrogance, appears twice in the Kiddushin 70 drama, once in the middle of scene 2 and

569 The Ketubot simultext highlights a fascinating occurrence demonstrating how the Bavli’s editorial process continues through the middle ages strengthening the relationship between simultexts through the use of new trigger words. On Ketubot 60a the word eturnga appears as a happax identical to the etrunga happax in Kiddushin save the inverted v and r and variant t. The word eturnga refers to the person who serves drinks to the Persian king. Kingship and serving drinks are both concepts that meaningfully refer back to our Kiddushin passage. Especially in relation to the use of a minor by King Shapur earlier on the page and the fact that it is the notion of Donag serving drinks that leads to a discussion of using women, even when a minor, in the first place. However, it is fairly clear that eturnga as it appears in the Vilna and Venice editions is merely a corruption of the word akhvanger, the v and kh being turned into a t. Is this merely a copyist error or part of a meaningful transitional phase in the aesthetics of the Bavli? If indeed merely a copyist error then is this evidence that the copyist was unconsciously influenced by the other trigger word relationships between these simultexts in creating a new trigger word relationship? Whether intentional or not, this is certainly an example of the complexity of the bidirectional editorial process of the Bavli into its final form.

190

once at the close of scene 5. The linear reader of this story might see the first occurrence of the term as foreshadowing. However, when the GB reader reaches the first appearance of the term in Scene 2, Scene 5 and its contents and context become activated. For this אתרונגא rāmût rûḥāʾ) of Rav Naḥman’s use of the word ,רמות רוחא) reader, the arrogance rāmût rûḥāʾ) of ,רמות רוחא) ʾatrûngāʾ, citron) is informed by the subsequent arrogance) Bati the son of Tuviah’s refusal to accept his manumission document. Bati the son of Tuviah is a character who is only mentioned one other time in the entire Bavli, at Avodah ʾatrûgāʾ) אתרוגא Zarah 76b. In that instance, he appears together with the rare word citron.) In a very short story at the close of tractate Avodah Zarah, Bati the son of Tuvi(ah) and Mar Yehudah are sitting with King Shapur. King Shapur cuts a piece citron ʾatrûgāʾ) and hands it to Bati the son of Tuvi(ah). King Shapur then proceeds to ,אתרוגא) stab his knife into the ground ten times before cutting off another piece off and handing it 570 to Mar Yehudah.569F This physically violent image of King Shapur stabbing his knife ten times contrasts nicely with the meek Rav Naḥman of our story, whose power stems from his relationship to the physical dominance of King Shapur over the Jews of Babylonia— and that, only through his wine-container-smashing wife. ʾatrûgāʾ citron), as well as) אתרוגא The relationship of King Shapur to the word the role of Rav Naḥman as husband of Yalta and son-in-law to the exilarch, is reinforced by trigger words pointing to the Bavli’s discussion of a Mishnah located at Ketubot 59b. mělākot) a woman is required to ,מלכות) The Mishnah (Ketubot 5:5) discusses the work do for her husband and how those requirements are altered in a scenario where the woman is wealthy, when she brings maidservants with her into the marriage. One of the mělākot) a woman must do for her husband is nurse her child. This leads the ,מלכות) tasks Bavli to a discussion of whether or not a woman may remarry while still nursing a child by a previous husband.

570 King Shapur did this to make the knife kosher. [This Avodah Zarah story follows a Baraita that states that one may render a knife kosher by stabbing it into the ground ten times.] The story continues with Bati objecting to King Shapur's actions and saying "Is he a Jew and not me?" The tractate ends with two possible responses given by King Shapur. The first is, "I am certain of him, but I am not certain of you." This could be a reference to Bati's uncertain manumission status. Had Bati not accepted his manumission document then, according to one authority, he would not be considered a Jew. (See footnote 201.) The alternative answer given for King Shapur is, "Remember what you did last night?" The tractate ends with this cryptic remark. Rashi explains that it was a Persian custom to provide women [to serve as sexual partners] for one's guests. Rav Yehudah declined the offer, but Bati accepted. King Shapur therefore did not think that Bati was so pious in his Jewish observance as to necessitate his rendering the knife kosher before cutting him a piece of citron. מר קים לי :It is fascinating that the first of the alternate answers provided by the Bavli for King Shapur is ,mar qîm lî běgawěh ûmar lô mar qîm lî běgawěh). This sentence translates as, "sir) בגויה ומר לא קים לי בגויה בגויה ,"I am certain regarding him; and sir, I am not certain regarding him." The word for "regarding him is pronounced běgôyâ and means בגויה běgawěh) is a cross-linguistic homograph. In Hebrew, the word) "regarding a non-Jewish woman." Therefore the first answer can be read (an it is often the case for a single sentence in the Bavli to contain both Aramaic and Hebrew words) as "for him I am certain about the non- Jewish woman, but for you I am not." According to this reading, the first answer would be saying the same thing as the alternate answer. It is perhaps due to this homograph that the second tradition evolved. 191

A number of questions would arise if she were to have a child with her new husband. Would nursing her first child interfere with her obligations to her new husband vis-à-vis the second child? Would the premature weaning of her first child put that child in danger? Or, perhaps her contractual obligation to nurse her first husband's children even extends beyond the date of divorce or the first husband's death. The Bavli cites a Baraita that allows a woman to remarry in a case where she turned the baby over to a wet nurse. The Bavli proceeds to recount how two Rabbis wanted to use this Baraita to decide an actual case brought before them. A certain old woman curtailed their efforts by claiming that Rav Naḥman prohibited her to remarry in the same instance. (The use of a woman's testimony, especially when that testimony is brought in the form of a story from the past, plays an important role in the Kiddushin drama, as mentioned earlier.) The Bavli objects to the possibility that Rav Naḥman prohibited this old woman from remarrying by asking: “But did not Rav Naḥman permit them (women who turned their babies over to wet nurses) to the house of the exilarchate?” The Bavli then answers that women of the house of the exilarchate are an exceptional case, and would therefore be allowed remarry while nursing. This is so because wet nurses do not back out of arrangements made with the house of the exilarchate.571 There is therefore both no fear that the woman would neglect her child nor her obligations to her new husband. Aḥai of Sabha Gaon [8th century] is one of the earliest recorded readers of the Bavli. As such, he was also a writer of the Bavli. Rav Aḥai 's Sheiltot often contain quotes from the Bavli that do not match any of the extant manuscript or printed editions. Much like the author of the Vatican 116-117 manuscript tradition, discussed in chapter 4, Rav Aḥai 's Talmudic quotes should not be assessed for accuracy—i.e. whether or not he is correctly quoting the original historical Bavli— but rather conceived of as part of the activity of the Superstam. Textual differences found in Aḥai's text should be viewed as an act of writing, an act of contribution to the living Talmudic text, whether or not his version of the text is later corroborated by manuscript or print editions. The activity of the Superstam is fluid and is negotiated and renegotiated for hundreds of years, through the alteration of individual words or the replacement of words for synonyms that act as trigger words. This activity occurs after the supposed closing of the Babylonian Talmud, heretofore conceived of by most scholars as the end of the activity of the Stam of the sugya. Therefore, the fact that Aḥai Gaon introduces a trigger word into his text should be viewed as a moment of Super-stammaitic activity rather than textual corruption. In this instance, Rav Ahai's version of the text is continued in the manuscript tradition through the Saint Petersburg manuscript. The fact that the Saint Petersburg manuscript did not become the basis for the version of this passage found in the printed editions does not in any way change the fact that Rav Ahai's version further associates the Kiddushin 70, Avodah Zarah 76b, and Ketubot 60b-61a simultexts with the addition of yet another trigger word. The Bavli’s question in response to the old woman’s claim, as found in the printed editions to Ketubot 60b as well as all but one of the extant manuscripts, reads:

571 Rashi explains that they are in fear of the exilarchate.

192

“But did not Rav Naḥman permit them (women who turned their babies over to wet nurses) to the house of the exilarchate?” According to the Sheiltot, as well as the Saint Petersburg manuscript,572 the text reads: “But did not Rav Naḥman permit Yalta?”573 Both according to the Sheiltot and the Saint Petersburg manuscript, the Bavli answers that the house of the exilarchate is different because their children, once given to a wet nurse, are not returned. These versions of the Ketubot 60b text are important for our purposes because they clearly equate Yalta, in her own right, with the house of the exilarch. However, they somewhat confuse the reader as to the relationship between Rav Naḥman and Yalta. Some have suggested that Yalta was married three times:574 She had a child with her first husband; then Rav Naḥman allowed her to marry again after turning her child over to a wet nurse, owing to her affiliation with the house of the exilarchate; she then subsequently married Rav Naḥman as her third husband. Although it is quite normal, in the world of the Bavli, for an important woman to marry an important Rabbi as a second or third marriage,575 it makes more sense to interpret this passage as referring to Rav Naḥman’s marriage to Yalta. The Bavli asks: "How can this old woman be correct? Did not Rav Naḥman marry Yalta even though she was still nursing a child from a previous marriage?" Reading the Bavli’s question in this way fits neatly into the Bavli’s ambivalent representation of those Rabbis who were close to the government, quintessential among them Rav Naḥman and, as we will see in another simultext, Rabban Gamliel.576

As mentioned earlier, simultexts are significant when they are activated by multiple trigger words. The Ketubot 60b-61simultext exemplifies the notion of proximity, or contiguity, also previously mentioned. When multiple words operate as triggers, they sometimes can be found in the immediate proximity of a simultext rather than within it. ʾatrûgāʾ citron) appear fewer than ten) אתרוגא yaltāʾ, Yalta) and) ילתא Both the words times each in the Bavli. Just as Yalta is not necessarily a historical figure, but rather a ʾatrûgāʾ citron), as) אתרוגא Bavli character of whom we can build a profile, so too

והא רב נחמן שרא לה לילתא ואמרי לה :The Saint Petersburg manuscript offers both versions of the question 572 But did not Rav Naḥman permit Yalta; and some say, [But did not Rav Naḥman permit] to) לדבי ריש גלותא the house of the exilarchate?) 573 She’iltot De-Rav Ahai Gaon (Berlin: Sefarim, 677), Parshat Vayeira, 13. 574 See Netziv's (Naphtali Zevi Judah Berlin,1816-1893, Russia, Poland) commentary Haʿemek Shʾeilah, n.d.to the Sheiltot, Parshat Vayeira 13, found in Aḥa, Sefer Sheʼiltot, 6th ed. (Yerushalayim: Mosad ha-Rav Ḳuḳ, 1986), 80; also see Reuben Margaliot, Le-Ḥeker Shemot Ṿe-Khinuyim Ba-Bavli (Yerushalayim: Mosad ha-Rav Ḳuḳ, 720), 40-41. 575 As is attested by the cases of Ḥoma, the daughter of Rav Hisda, and others. Ḥoma married Abbai as her third husband. The daughter of Rav Hisda married Rava as her second husband. Interestingly enough, Rava showed interest in becoming Ḥoma's fourth husband. However, Rava's first wife put an end to that idea by literally chasing her out of town. (Ketubot 65a) 576 In this regard, see David M. Goodblatt, The Monarchic Principle: Studies in Jewish Self-Government in Antiquity (Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 180 ff.

193

linguistic marker, represents a character about which we can build a profile. The profile ʾatrûgāʾ citron), as a character in the Bavli, is further developed when it) אתרוגא of appears twice on Ketubot 61a in the context of King Shapur. In this passage, King Shapur, who himself was the source of the exilarch’s power, makes use of a woman who 577 in all probability was a minor.576F The appearance of both of these words in a passage that

577 This text appears in the context of what effect the food eaten by a pregnant woman has on their children. The Bavli states:

דאכלה אתרוגא - הוו לה בני ריחני. ברתיה דשבור מלכא אכלה בה אמה אתרוגא, והוו מסקי לה לקמיה אבוה בריש ריחני

One who eats citron will have fragrant children. The daughter of King ʾatrûgāʾ) [while ,אתרוגא) Shapur, whose mother had eaten citron pregnant with her. And they would bring her out before her father as a principal fragrance. [BT Ketubot 61a]

It is interesting at this point to reflect on the Baba Batra parallel of the story of the young girl's suicide at the end of Scene 4. The expanded version of this story appears in Baba Batra 3b and has some interesting thematic connections to our Kiddushin passage. The Baba Batra passage explains how Herod came to rebuild the Second Temple on a grand scale. Herod was a slave in the Hasmonean royal household and he developed a sexual attraction to a young Hasmonean girl. One day a heavenly voice convinced him that he could successfully overtake the Hasmonean ruling family so he rose up and killed all of the Hasmonean royal family except this one girl. When the girl realized that Herod intended to marry her she, as the נפלה Kiddushin passage explains, went up to the roof, made her announcement, and jumped (the word (nāplâ), fell, is used in the Baba Batra passage as well). Herod then embalms the dead girl with honey for seven years. At this point in the story, the Bavli interjects its analysis of Herod’s motivation for embalming the girl. Some say that he practiced necrophilia on her while others say he did not. Those who say that Herod practiced necrophilia on the girl explain his motivation for embalming her as stemming from an attempt satisfy (literally, settle) his desires. Those who say he did not practice necrophilia on the girl explain that Herod embalmed the girl in order that people would think that he was married to the daughter of a king. The story continues with Herod killing all of the rabbis except for one, Baba the son of Buta, who eventually succeeds in advising Herod to rebuild the temple. (On Baba the son of Buta, see footnote 602 above.) While the Baba Batra story is told anonymously (though Shmuel appears directly before the story begins) one cannot help but notice the relationship between Shmuel’s role in declaring all descendants of Hasmoneans slaves in the Kiddushin passage and Herod's sexual "use" of a [dead] young girl in its Baba Batra parallel. After all, it is also Shmuel who, earlier in the Kiddushin passage, both prohibits the “use” of a young girl and equates the voice of a woman with illicit sex. In viewing Shmuel’s exhortation against the use of women as related to Donag and Yalta, the reader is reminded of Herod’s use of this young girl as an object either of sexual satisfaction or of royal lineage. This points two ironies of the Kiddushin 70 passage. First, it is Rav Naḥman’s marriage to Yalta that is his connection to the royal Davidic line. In a sense, Yalta represents for Rav Naḥman what the young Hasmonean girl represented for Herod, a way to legitimate his claim to the thrown through his association with a female heir to that thrown. In Rav Naḥman's case, that thrown is the exilarchate. Second, Rav Yehudah uses the Shmuel-based illicit raised voice of Hasmonean girl as the sole testimony to the very law he seeks to establish. 194

comments on the Mishnah about marrying a wealthy woman highlights various aspects of the Kiddushin text, which itself follows in close proximity to a text warning against marrying a woman for money.578

The Seat:

,on a chair) אקרפיטא RAV NAḤMAN: [Please] sit aqrapîyṭāʾ). ,chair) ספסל [RAV YEHUDAH: Do you despise [the term chair, ʾîyṣṭěbāʾ) used) איצטבא sapsāl) used by the rabbis, or ?(ordinary] people, ʾîynšî]) אינשי by

Simultexts: Kiddushin 70 Berakhot 27-28 sapsāl sapsalê ספסלי ספסל bench benches This reading also complementsbê n ětheśîâ theme of the Mishnah in whose[ně ś îûtcontext] it appears in the Bavli, namely, how marriage laws are altered when one marries a wealthy (נשיאות) בי נשיאה woman. House of the [Office of Trigge r Words: President President] hahûʾ yômāʾ hahûʾ yômāʾ (x2) (x2) ההוא יומא (x3) ההוא יומא (x2) on that very day on that very day

The second object in our Kiddushin 70 drama, the chair, directs the reader to a 579 ,sapsāl) ,ספסל very specific story found on Berakhot 27b-28a.578F The trigger words

578 “Rabbah bar Rav Ada said that Rav said: Whoever marries a woman for the sake of money will have children who are not genetically fit.” (Kiddushin 70a)

579 For treatment of this story, see Daniel Boyarin, Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006), 185-189; R. Goldenberg, “The Deposition of Rabban Gamliel II: an Examination of the Sources,” Journal of Jewish Studies 23 (1972): 167-190; Jeffrey L. Rubenstein, rabbinic Stories (Paulist Press, 2002), 95-103; and Devora Steinmetz, “Agada Unbound: Intere-Agadic Characterization of Sages in the Bavli and Implications for Reading Agada,” in Creation and composition: the contribution of the Bavli redactors (Stammaim) to the Aggada, ed. Jeffrey L. Rubenstein (Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 293-338.

195

580 בי נשיאה hahûʾ yômāʾ, on that very day)579F and the choice of the words) ההוא יומא (bench ריש bê něśîâ, house of the Presidency) to describe the exilarchate, normally designated)

hahûʾ yômāʾ, on that very day) is a term that appears frequently in the Bavli (around) ההוא יומא Although 580 eighty times), an analysis of those instances explain why term's appearance at Berakhot 28a is unique and why its appearance at Kiddushin 70 would act as a trigger to activate the Berakhot 27-28 simultext. Three hahûʾ yômâ) lead the reader of Kiddushin 70 to the Berakhot 27-28) ההוא יומא factors relating to the term hahûʾ yômâ) appears in the Bavli it does so in legal) ההוא יומא simultext. First off, most of the time that contexts relating to contract law (e.g. what if someone wrote a certain date in a contract and on that day hahûʾ yômâ)]? etc.) The term is only used within the context of a narrative on a fraction of) ההוא יומא] hahûʾ yômâ) appear three) ההוא יומא those occasions. Second, in the Berakhot 28 passage, not only does בו :times, but it appears twice in the context of stating a rule about the Hebrew equivalent of the term itself bô bayôm) is used in the Bavli it refers to) בו ביום bô bayôm, on that very day). Whenever the phrase) ביום hahûʾ yômâ) [i.e. it is the day that Rabban Gamliel was removed from the office of) ההוא יומא) that very day Presidency] that is meant [by the phrase.]" A closer look at the various uses of the phrase "on that very day" in this Berakhot passage, as well as the ubiquity, multiple forms, and thematization of, the phrase will bear out this point. I quote a passage from Berakhot 28a, beginning with what occurred to Rabbi El'azar upon his appointment to the Presidency in Rabban Gamliel's stead.

ההוא יומא בר תמני סרי שני הוה, אתרחיש ליה ניסא ואהדרו ליה תמני סרי דרי חיורתא היינו דקאמר רבי אלעזר בן עזריה הרי אני כבן שבעים שנה ולא בן שבעים שנה תנא אותו היום סלקוהו לשומר הפתח ונתנה להם רשות לתלמידים ליכנס שהיה רבן גמליאל מכריז ואומר כל תלמיד שאין תוכו כברו לא יכנס לבית המדרש ההוא יומא אתוספו כמה ספסלי אמר רבי יוחנן פליגי בה אבא יוסף בן דוסתאי ורבנן חד אמר אתוספו ארבע מאה ספסלי וחד אמר שבע מאה ספסלי הוה קא חלשא דעתיה דרבן גמליאל אמר דלמא חס ושלום מנעתי תורה מישראל אחזו ליה בחלמיה חצבי חיורי דמליין קטמא ולא היא ההיא ליתובי דעתיה הוא דאחזו ליה תנא עדיות בו ביום נשנית וכל היכא דאמרינן בו ביום ההוא יומא הוה hahûʾ yômâ) [Rabbi El'azar the son of ,ההוא יומא) On that very day 'Azariah] was 18 years old. A miracle occured for him and 18 rows of [hair on his beard] turned white...A Baraita states: On that very day ôtô hayôm) they removed the guard at the door [of the study ,אותו היום) hall] and gave permission for the students to enter. For Rabban Gamliel [had] proclaimed [that] any student whose interior [character] did not match his exterior [appearance] was forbidden entry to the hahûʾ yômâ) they added ,ההוא יומא) study hall. On that very day many (400 or 700) benches [in the study hall.]...Rabban Gamliel was depressed. He said [to himself,] "Perhaps, God forbid, I withheld [the study of] Torah amongst Israel." He was shown a cask full of white ashes in his dream [i.e. he was assured in his dream that he acted properly by not allowing the disingenuous students to enter the study hall.] However, this was not the case [i.e. the dream was false.] He was only shown the dream so that his depression would be relieved. A בו ) Baraita states: [Tractate] Eduyot was formulated on that very day bô ,בו ביום) bô bayôm). And any time that it says that very day ,ביום hahûʾ yômâ) [of ההוא יומא) bayôm) [in the Bavli] it is that very day Rabban Gamliel's removal from the office of the President] that is meant.

hahûʾ yômâ) to designate political upheaval at Kiddushin 70 (line 58) is ההוא יומא) Thirdly, the use of hahûʾ yômâ) does not always refer to a political ההוא יומא) ’quite significant. Although ‘on that very day 196

rêš gělûtāʾ), work as a group to activate a simultext regarding Rabban Gamliel’s) גלותא removal from the office of the Presidency. In that Berakhot 27b-28a story, Rabban Gamliel insults Rabbi Yehoshua, which leads to Rabban Gamliel being voted out of office. He is replaced as president by Rabbi El’azar the son of ‘Azariah. After Rabban Gamliel apologizes to Rabbi Yehoshua, he is reinstated as president, albeit only to three 581 fourths of his previous appointment.580F Reading Berakhot 27b-28a alongside our Kiddushin passage serves the purpose of highlighting several important aspects of the Kiddushin story. Rabbi El’azar ben ‘Azariah is, in Berakhot 27b-28a, a tenth generation descendant of Ezra and thus of the priestly caste. Rabban Gamliel, though a descendant of the Davidic dynasty, is replaced by a priest. After Rabbi Yehoshua accepts Rabban Gamliel’s apology, the rabbis initially lock the door to the study hall to prevent Rabban Gamliel from returning to power. It is only after Rabbi Yehoshua is allowed to enter and present his argument that Rabban Gamliel is reinstated. Rabbi Yehoshua’s argument reads as follows: “Let the sprinkler son of a sprinkler sprinkle; shall he who is neither a sprinkler nor the son of a sprinkler say to a sprinkler son of a sprinkler ‘Your water is cave water and your ashes are oven ashes?’” Rabbi Yehoshua’s argument is that Rabban Gamliel as a practicing political leader from a family of political leaders would be most fit for the office of presidency while Rabbi El’azar ben ‘Azariah as an eighteen year old from a non-political family should not rule. What is of note is the fact that whereas Rabbi El’azar ben ‘Azariah is the priest in this story, Rabbi Yehoshua uses the priestly terminology “sprinkle” to describe Rabban Gamliel, the Davidic descendant. The trigger words used to direct the reader to the Berakhot simultext highlight the power struggle between the priestly heir to the Hasmonean dynasty (the Neardean man) and the Davidic exilarch, Rav Naḥman, in Kiddushin 70. When read alone, Kiddushin 70 pits Rav Yehudah against Rav Naḥman and Rav Yehudah against the Nehardean man. Berakhot 28b-29a reminds the reader of the unspoken conflict between Rav Naḥman and the Nehardean man. It is important to note that whereas the Hasmonean dynasty represents autonomous rule, the Davidic offices of the presidency and exilarchate respectively receive their authority only through the 582 custodial power of the Roman and Persian empires.581F

upheaval, it is not a common enough expression, when used in the context of a narrative, to ignore the following instances in which the term appears: when Rabban Gamliel is forced out of his Presidency (BT Berakhot 28a); Rabbi’s death (BT Ketuboth 104a); Establishing laws for ‘respect of the President’ and Av Beit Din (BT Horayoth 13b); a story regarding the honor of the house of the Caesar (similar to honor of the house of the President) (BT Sotah 40a); and Rabbi Ḥanin, the son-in-law of the House of the President (Moed Katan 25b).

581 After his reinstatement, Rabban Gamliel shares the Presidency with Rabbi Ela'azar. Rabban Gamliel serves for three weeks out of the month and Rabbi El'azar serves the remaining week. 582 I do not refer here to a historical reality but rather to the Bavli’s own conception of the differences between these two dynasties. It is important to note that the Bavli differentiated between the periods of true Hasmonean autonomy and the period when the Hasmoneans themselves became stewards of the Roman Empire. In this regard see BT ‘Avoda Zarah 9a. When counting the days of the second temple the Bavli divides the ruling parties into four groups: The Persians ruled for 34 years; the Greeks ruled for 180 years; 197

Another aspect of Berakhot 28b-29a that enlightens Kiddushin 70 is the rhetorical role of the rabbis. In Berakhot 27b-28a, when it is decided that Rabbi El’azar ben ‘Azariah will be made president after Rabban Gamliel is removed from office, Rabbi El’azar ben ‘Azariah seeks his wife’s counsel before accepting the position. His wife tries to dissuade him. Although it is apparent from the story that Rabbi El’azar ben ‘Azariah does indeed accept the position of president, the dialogue between his wife and him ends with her having the final word, “you have no white hair.” It is only the miracle of his hair turning white, and not Rabbi El’azar ben ‘Azariah’s rhetorical expertise, that rebuts his wife’s argument. This reminds the reader of the role of Yalta not only in our Kiddushin 70 story but more so in the Berakhot 51 simultext discussed earlier.583

In Conclusion:

What the numerous Kiddushin simultexts, when activated, accomplish for the GB reader is to highlight a central moment of anxiety for the rabbis. What is the source of their power and authority? How far does their authority extend and who do they control? By what mechanism do they control the people they do? The drama becomes about the various factions within the rabbinic world struggling for power. The Bavli's ambivalence toward rabbinic authority is expressed through the mechanism of trigger words and simultexts, which act to shift the reader's attention away from the conflict between the two Rabbis and highlight the general fragility of rabbinic power and its sources. In the end, it appears as though it is Yalta, and her complex relationship to power, authority, and the rabbis, who is surprisingly the most prominent player in this drama. What this chapter has demonstrated is that there are multiple ways to read the Bavli, but it is the Global Bavli reader who most comprehensively engages every layer of this complicated text. Moreover, it is a GB reader, who, as Superstam, authored this text. That is not to say that the Superstam constructed the form of the text, only that the Superstam controls the mode of the meaning conveyance mechanisms of the text when read by its implied reader. The first two chapter of part two described the trigger word simultext reading effect for both an aggadic and halakhic sugya. The point of that exercise was to demonstrate that the type of activity, which I label Super-stammaitic, recurs in every aspect of the Bavli text we now read. The comparison of local, immediate contextual, and global readings presented in chapter four and six served to highlight how the Superstam seizes control over the meaning conveyance mechanisms of the Stam of the sugya, when the Bavli is read by the GB reader. Finally, the interaction between

the Hasmoneans ruled for 103 years; and the royal house of Herod ruled for 103 years. Rather than counting the rule of the Hasmoneans as lasting for 206 years the Bavli divides the periods of autonomous Hasmonean rule and non-autonomous Herodian rule. 583 It is interesting to compare the rhetorical impact of these characters "having the last word" with the alternate reading of line 48 of the Vatican 111 manuscript of Kiddushin 70.

198

seven different Bavli passages, presented in chapter six serves to paint a microcosmic portrait of how the Bavli must have operated on those actual historical readers responsible for its transmission.

199

Conclusion

This dissertation proposes a semiotics of the Babylonian Talmud, how the Bavli operates on its reader to convey meaning. Such a project cannot begin without answering several questions. What is the Babylonian Talmud? Who is its reader? And to what type of meaning do I refer? I have worked to answer these questions throughout the dissertation. In conclusion, I address further questions raised by these answers.

What is the Babylonian Talmud?

Throughout this dissertation, I use the term "the Bavli," implying that the book is a physical object that we can examine. However, my discussion of the book intimates that the Bavli is amorphous, net yet formed and still forming. But the objects I examine in this dissertation do have a concrete form. The Bavli's I explore are the Vilna, Venice, and Soncino prints, and the numerous manuscripts used in each of the chapters of this dissertation. Yet I use the term "Bavli" rather than "Bavlis." Herein lies the paradox of a discussion of the literary characteristics of the Bavli. There really is no Bavli to speak of. Like the reader of the Bavli itself, I begin my project already in the middle, with no place to start and no place to end. As a convention, I choose the Vilna edition as my starting point and work backward from there. I begin with a concept of the Vilna edition as "the Bavli" and compare and contrast all other versions. I do so not because I believe the Vilna edition to be the best version of the Bavli, nor because I believe it to be the most authentic version. Neither of these terms, "best" or "authentic" underlie the perspective on the Bavli I put forth in this dissertation. "Authentic" implies that there is a version of the Bavli that is the correct one— even if such a version does not, or never did, exist as an artifact—and that all other versions are corruptions of that authentic Bavli. "Best" implies that there is some criteria by which one can weigh which version of the Bavli is better than any other. Surely, for my purposes, I would conceive of "the best Bavli" as the one containing the most occurrences of ambivalence expressed through the literary mechanisms of ambiguity and trigger words. However, by virtue of the fact that I begin with the convention of using the Vilna edition as my starting point, I can never really know which one is best for my purposes. My results surely would be different if I were to choose the Saint Petersburg manuscript as my conventional starting point and work outward, backward and forward, from there. Choosing a manuscript, whose textual tradition represents a halfway point of literary activity between the other textual traditions I

200

explore, would certainly be more effective. An exploration of such a manuscript would more significantly buttress my claim for the recurring activity of the Superstam. However, I choose the Vilna edition as my starting point for practical reasons. It is the Bavli that is most readily available, the one most commented upon, and the one I have most studied and therefore feel most comfortable exploring. Still, considering the problems inherent in choosing any particular version of the Bavli as a starting point for the type of analysis I do in this dissertation, the Vilna edition does have some advantages. First, in relation to the various manuscripts available, it represents a single version of a textual tradition, even if that textual tradition is the product of the blending of previous textual traditions. Aside from the Munich manuscript, there is no "complete" version of the Bavli that pre-dates the printing press. Therefore it would be impossible to examine the frequency and therefore impact of trigger words using an "incomplete" manuscript. Throughout the course of my research, I have encountered several manuscripts that appear to exhibit higher rates of the tendencies I look for. However, I have no way to properly assess the accuracy of my hunches, owing to a lack of data. In truth, the whole scale comparative analysis of the literary features of "a Bavli" can only be done on the Munich manuscript and the various printed editions, most of which are merely recapitulations of each other. Such work would certainly lend much insight, but probably would not accomplish much more for an understanding of the literary features of "the Bavli" than the approach I have taken. The second advantage of beginning a discussion of the "the Bavli" with the Vilna edition has to do with the very conception of the Bavli as a partnership between reader and writer that I have argued for in this dissertation. As a late edition, the text of the Vilna Shas reflects a more expansive portrait of the historical partnership between the Bavli's reader and writer. The text itself, in a way, canonizes difference and textual alteration within the actual body of the work. While manuscripts are written in a single hand, they often contain the work of other hands. On any page of a given manuscript one can find words crossed out, changed, and altered. However, there is a sense that there is an original version that is being fixed. A hierarchy is evoked, even though the organization of that hierarchy is unclear. The Vilna Shas also contains similar markings. Words are placed in brackets and parenthesis; and marginal notes correct the text. But the presentation of textual difference in the Vilna Shas portrays that difference as a part of the Bavli itself. This allows for a conception of the Bavli as an unfinished text or a text still being finished—a text that invites its reader to continue its construction.

Who is the Bavli's Reader?

I have defined the reader I explore in this dissertation as the Bavli's implied reader, a heuristic reader whose characteristics can be delineated once close attention has been paid to what the Bavli assumes of its own reader. The title of this dissertation— "The Poetic Superstructure of the Babylonian Talmud and the Reader It Fashions— 201

proposes that this dissertation is about how the book's mode of representation impacts the construction, or formation, of a certain reader. Throughout the dissertation, I argued that this reader, in turn, equally fashions the text in a manner that fashions future readers. However, I do not address the culture of reading in which the book was designed nor the culture of reading that the transmission of such a book requires. I also do not address the religious component in this equation. If religious reading is simply considered the reading of religious texts then there were three main objects of religious reading in ancient Judaism: some form of prayer book; the Bible; and the Talmud. However, we can also conceive of religious reading as a religious practice. Accordingly, prayer has the most obvious religious function because it directly relates to one's relationship with God. The reading of both the Bible and the Talmud were also considered religious acts in the ancient world. We know this because Jewish law requires that one recite a blessing before reading either of them, just as one must recite a blessing before any religious ritual. According to this conception of religious reading, the Bible and the prayer book, but not the Talmud, share a compulsory communal component in their reading. One must pray three times a day and one must read the Bible three times a week. Religious reading, as such, for the Talmud is purely optional.584 There are other ways of considering religious reading, such as the actual type of reading that is being practiced and the cultural purpose it serves. When conceived in this way, religious reading can be a mode of preserving the religious texts of a culture. This is especially true when thinking about an oral culture. For ancient Jewish culture, the reading of the Bible would seem to fall into this category of preservative reading. Although the Bible is a written text, it is the obligation to read it publicly coupled with a prohibition to read it by heart that preserves and perpetuates the written text in a fixed form. The reading of the Talmud, however, is more so a generative act than a preservative one. Its purpose it to produce rather than maintain. In contrast to the Bible, Jewish law prohibits the writing down of the oral law. The purpose of this prohibition is to allow for alteration and production rather than stifling preservation. Additionally, as mentioned in the introduction, the type of reading to which I refer is what can be gîrsāʾ), which simultaneously) גירסא ,discerned from the Talmudic word for reading means "read," "transmit," and "edit." This conception of reading as an act of editing as well as a mode of transmission highlights the unique relationship between reader and writer that this text fosters. In order for a religious culture to transmit a generative text of this sort—a two-million word oral text, whose actual words are always in a state of flux—the religious culture must not only cultivate a certain attitude toward the act of reading, but also provide institutions that allow for that kind of reading to take place. The Bible is a comparatively easy text to transmit. It can be placed in a synagogue or library, perhaps with a translation, and whoever wants to come and read it

584 Though there is non-communal obligation for each individual to study Bible, Mishah, and Talmud daily. (See, for example, Kiddushin 30a.)

202

can.585 In order to transmit a text like the Talmud—a text that assumes that its reader has already read it—a whole culture must be devoted to its transmission. By virtue of its expectations, the Talmud itself postulates into existence a community of extraordinary readers and a religion focused on preserving the cultural institutions necessary to perpetuate this generative text. Institutions must exist to produce and train extraordinary readers. Even those people who never read the book must value it and contribute to the process in some way. The cultural dominance of the Talmud for the Jewish religion can be explained in the following way. The cultural requirements necessitated for the Talmud's transmission, in turn, fashion a culture devoted to its transmission. I propose that our conception of the Jewish academic institutions in the late antique and early medieval periods should be formed not from anecdotal evidence (dubious descriptions found in texts of uncertain origin and dating), but rather through an understanding of the reading processes—and therefore cultural institutions— that the transmission of such a text requires.

What is Meaning?

Throughout this dissertation, my readings of Talmudic passages take on more the form of a description than an argument. My purpose in presenting the Talmudic texts in this manner is twofold. First, I want to invite my reader to participate in the construction of meaning in the texts I present. My goal is to detail how the Bavli expresses moments of cultural undecidability for the heuristic reader I construct. Ultimately, undecidability is uncomfortable (caused by anxiety and causing anxiety) and I anticipate that my reader will form decisions where I try to "undecide." The second purpose of my mode of presentation stems from a desire to highlight the process that the Talmud, by virtue of its own rhetorical presentation, encourages. The Talmud is a text that is always working toward meaning but never really gets there. The argument of this dissertation is how the Talmud's rhetorical end, an end that is always in the middle, is continued by those readers affected by the Talmud's own rhetoric. I hypothesize that this process is an old one, the origin of which can be found in the Bible's own modes of expression and their impact on Biblical readers, those readers who formed what might be called the proto-Talmud. The vacillation between meaning and subversion, found in the work of the Stam and Superstam, can be seen as the product of two competing cultural forces related to the transmission of the Talmud. On the one hand, the generative nature of the Talmud is a response to the problems the rabbis faced when attempting to practically adjudicate biblical law. [As a practical law guide, the Bible has many shortcomings. Not only does the Bible lack the specificity required to govern the complex society in which the rabbis lived, but even in moments of specificity, the Biblical system presented problems of practical adjudication

585 See Kiddushin 66a. 203

posed by the different cultural and moral norms of the society in which they now lived. This is evident in my discussion of the intention of a killer, virginity claims, and slavery in chapters 2, 3, and 5.] On the other hand, the generative aspect of the Talmud leads to the formation of a text that encourages advanced theoretical thought. The institutions established for the transmission of the Talmud therefore, much like their yeshivah counterparts today, most probably simultaneously developed the competing goals of theoretical expansion and practical decidability. The tension of these competing goals is fought out in the literary form of the Talmud itself and those adjustments to the text introduced in its transmission. This dissertation argues that the undecidability of practical cultural issues continues to find its expression in the work of the Superstam. When viewed in this way, the Superstam and Stam do not necessarily have to be seen as chronological historical entities. Rather, they can be seen as two literary functions within the text. The Superstam can be seen as competing against the work of the Stam, though both literary functions are generative. Whereas the generative aspect of the work of the Stam is driven by a practical agenda, the Superstam subverts that agenda by promoting the generative theoretical aspect of the Talmud, one that expresses undecidability through the literary mechanisms of ambiguity and trigger words. This dissertation has attempted to demonstrate the existence – both conceptual and real – of a Global Bavli reader. The implications of this for our understanding of late antique Jewish history are innumerable. At the very least, we need to revise our assumptions about the educational institutions and religious culture of this important period in Jewish history.

204

BIBLIOGRAPHY

(Gaon), Sherira ben Hanina. The Iggeres of Rav Sherira Gaon. Translated by Natan Daṿid ben Yehudah Leyb Rabinovits. Rabbi Jacob Joseph School Press, Ahavath Torah Institute, 1988. Aḥa. Sefer Sheʼiltot. 6th ed. Yerushalayim: Mosad ha-Rav Ḳuḳ, 1986. ———. She’iltot De-Rav Ahai Gaon. Berlin: Sefarim, 677. Alter, Robert. The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary. W. W. Norton & Company, 2004. Baskin, Judith Reesa. Midrashic Women: Formations of the Feminine in Rabbinic Literature. UPNE, 2002. Ben-Porat, Ziva. “The Poetics of Literary Allusion.” Edited by Benjamin Hrushovski. PTL: A Journal for Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Literature 1 (1976): 105- 128. Berkowitz, Beth A. Execution and Invention: Death Penalty Discourse in Early Rabbinic and Christian Cultures. Oxford University Press US, 2006. Berlin, Naphtali Zevi Judah. Haʿemek Shʾeilah, n.d. Blank, Hanne. Virgin: The Untouched History. Bloomsbury Publishing USA, 2008. Boyarin, Daniel. Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006. ———. Carnal Israel. University of California Press, 1995. ———. Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture. University of California Press, 1995. ———. “Hellenism in Jewish Babylonia.” In The Cambridge companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature, edited by Charlotte Elisheva Fonrobert and Martin S. Jaffee, 336-363. Cambridge University Press, 2007. ———. “Literary Fat Rabbis: On the Historical Origins of the Grotesque body.” Journal of the History of Sexuality 1, no. 4 (April 1991): 551-584. ———. Socrates and the Fat Rabbis. 1st ed. University Of Chicago Press, 2009. ———. Socrates and the Fat Rabbis. University of Chicago Press, 2009. ———. Unheroic Conduct: The Rise of Heterosexuality and the Invention of the Jewish Man. 1st ed. University of California Press, 1997. Brockelmann, Carl. Lexicon Syriacum. Ed. 2, aucta et emendata. Halis Saxonum: Sumptibus M.Niemeyer, 1928. Brown, Francis, S R Driver, and Charles A Briggs. Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. 8th ed. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 2004. Cohen, Aryeh. Rereading Talmud. Scholars Press, 1998. ———. Rereading Talmud: Gender, Law, and the Poetics of Sugyot. Scholars Press, 1998.

205

Cohen, Shaye J. D, ed. The Synoptic Problem in Rabbinic Literature. Providence, RI: Brown Judaic Studies, 2000. “Criteria of Stammaitic Intervention in Aggada.” In Creation and Composition: The Contribution of the Bavli Redactors (Stammaim) to the Aggada, 417-440. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Culler, Jonathan. The Pursuit of Signs: Semiotics, Literature, Deconstruction. Psychology Press, 2001. Derrida, Jacques. Dissemination. Translated by Barbara Johnson. London: The Athlone Press, 1981. ———. Positions. Translated by Alan Bass. University Of Chicago Press, 1981. Dimitrovsky, Haim Z. S’Ridei Bavli: An Historical and Bibliographical Introduction. Jewish Theological Seminary, 1979. Doane, A. N. “Oral Texts, Intertexts, and Intratexts: Editing Old English.” In Influence and Intertextuality in Literary History, edited by Jay Clayton and Eric Rothstein, 75-113. University of Wisconsin Press, 1991. Dolgopolski, Sergey. Who Speaks, Thinks, and Remembers in the Talmud?: An Essay on the Virtual, n.d. Eco, Umberto. A Theory of Semiotics. Indiana University Press, 1978. Eilberg-Schwartz, Howard. People of the Body: Jews and Judaism from an Embodied Perspective. State University of New York Press, 1992. Einspahr, Bruce. Index to Brown, Driver & Briggs Hebrew lexicon. Moody Press, 1976. Elman, Ya’akov. “Middle Persian Culture and Babylonian Sages: Accommodation and Resistance in the Shaping of Rabbinic Legal Tradition.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature, edited by Charlotte Elisheva Fonrobert and Martin S. Jaffee, 165-197. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Empson, William. Milton’s God. Greenwood Press, 1978. ———. Seven Types of Ambiguity. New Directions Publishing, 1966. Epstein, J. N. Mavo Le-Nusaḥ Ha-Mishnah: Nusaḥ Ha-Mishnah Ṿe-Gilgulaṿ Lemi-Yeme Ha-Amoraʼim Ha-Rishonim Ṿe-ʻad Defuse Yom-Ṭov Lipman Heler. Vol. 1. 2 vols. Jerusalem, 1948. Ettlinger, Jacob. Sefer ʻArukh La-Ner ʻal Masekhet Nidah: Bo Niḳbetsu Ḥidushim U- Veʼurim. Jerusalem: s.n., 725. Fish, Stanley. Surprised by Sin: The Reader in Paradise Lost, Second Edition. 2nd ed. Harvard University Press, 1998. Fonrobert, Charlotte Elisheva. Menstrual Purity: Rabbinic and Christian Reconstructions of Biblical Gender. Stanford University Press, 2002. Fraenkel, Jonah. “She’elot Hermeneutiyot be-Ḥeker Sippur ha-’Aggadah.” Tarbiṣ 47 (1978): 139-172. Frankel, Zacharias. Mevo Ha-Yerushalmi. Breslaṿya: Shleṭṭer, 1870. Friedman, Shamma. “A Critical Study of Yevamot X with a Methodological Introduction.” In Meḥḳarim U-Meḳorot, edited by Haim Z Dimitrovsky, 278-441. New York: Bet ha-Midrash le-Rabanim ba-Ameriḳah [distributed by Ktav Pub. House], 1977. 206

———. “ʿal Derekh Ḥeker ha-Sugyah.” In Meḥḳarim U-Meḳorot, 278-441. Nyu Yor ḳ: Bet ha-midrash le-rabanim ba-Ameriḳah [distributed by Ktav Pub. House], 1977. ———. Talmud ʻarukh: Pereḳ Ha-Śokher Et Ha-Umanin: Bavli Bava Metsiʻa Pereḳ Shishi: Mahadurah ʻal Derekh Ha-Meḥḳar ʻim Perush Ha-Sugiyot. Yerushalayim: Bet ha-midrash le-rabanim ba-Ameriḳah, 1990. ———. “The Further Adventures of Rav Kahana.” In The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman culture, edited by Peter Schäfer, 3:247-271. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. ———. Tosefta ʻatiḳta: Masekhet Pesaḥ Rishon: Maḳbilot Ha-Mishnah Ṿeha-Tosefta Pirshon, Be-Tseruf Mavo Kelali. Ramat-Gan: Universiṭat Bar-Ilan, 2002. Friedman, Shamma Yehudah. “le-ʾagadâ Hahîsṭôrît be-Talmûd ha-Bavlî.” In Saul Lieberman Memorial Volume, edited by Shamma Friedman, 120-164. New York and Jerusalem: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1993. Gadamer, Hans Georg. Truth and Method. Translated by Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall. Continuum International Publishing Group, 2004. Goldenberg, R. “The Deposition of Rabban Gamliel II: an Examination of the Sources.” Journal of Jewish Studies 23 (1972): 167-190. Goodblatt, David M. The Monarchic Principle: Studies in Jewish Self-Government in Antiquity. Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Halivni, David. “Aspects of the Formation of the Talmud.” In Creation and Composition: The Contribution of the Bavli Redactors (Stammaim) to the Aggada, edited by Jeffrey L Rubenstein, translated by Jeffrey L. Rubenstein, 339-360. Mohr Siebeck, 2005. ———. “Iyyunim Behithavut HaTalmud.” Sidra 20 (2005): 69-117. Halivni, Daṿid. Meḳorot U-Masorot: Beʼurim Ba-Talmud: Masekhet Bava Metsiʻa. Yerushalayim: Hotsaʼat ha-sefarim ʻa. sh. Magnes, Universiṭah ha-ʻIvrit, 2003. ———. Mevoʼot Li-Meḳorot U-Masorot: ʻiyunim Be-Hithaṿut Ha-Talmud. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2009. Halivni, David Weiss. Sources and Tradition: A Source Critical Commentary on the Talmud Tractate Baba Batra (Hebrew). The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2007. ———. Sources and Traditions: A Source Critical Commentary on Seder Nashim. Tel Aviv: Hŵṣaʾat Dbiyr, 1968. Hasan-Rokem, Galit. Web of Life: Folklore and Midrash in Rabbinic Literature. Stanford University Press, 2000. Hauptman, Judith. Rereading the Rabbis: A Woman’s Voice. Westview Press, 1998. Heller, Marvin J. Printing the Talmud: A History of the Earliest Printed Editions of the Talmud. Im Hasefer, 1992. Herschler, Moshe, ed. Dikdukei ha-Soferim ha-Shalem: Masekhet Ketuvot. Vol. 1. Jerusalem: Yad HaRav Herzog, 1962. Hezser, Catherine. “The Slave of a Scholar is Like a Scholar.” In Creation and Composition: The Contribution of the Bavli Redactors (Stammaim) to the Aggada, edited by Jeffrey L. Rubenstein, 181-200. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 114. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. 207

Ilan, Tal. Mine and Yours are Hers: Retrieving Women’s History from Rabbinic Literature. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Iser, Wolfgang. The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980. Jaffee, Martin S. “Rabbinic Authorship as a Collective Enterprise.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature, edited by Charlotte Elisheva Fonrobert and Martin S. Jaffee, 17-37. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Jastrow, Marcus. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli, and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. Vol. II. 2 vols. Luzac, 1903. Joseph Ḥayyim ben Elijah al-Ḥakam. Ben Yehoyadaʻ; Beʼurim U-Ferushim ʻal Divre Agadah She-Diberu Ḥazal Be-Talmud Bavli. Yerushalayim: Yeshivat ha-Rabanim u-Vet ha-Keneset ʻa.sh.ʻEzra ha-Sofer, 724. Kalmin, Richard Lee. The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity. Routledge, 1999. Kalmin, Richard. Sages, Stories, Authors, and Editors in Rabbinic Babylonia. Brown Judaic Studies, 1994. ———. “The Formation and Character of the Babylonian Talmud.” In The Late Roman- Rabbinic period, edited by Steven T. Katz, 4:840-876. The Cambridge History of Judaism. Cambridge University Press, 2006. Kelly, Kathleen Coyne. Performing virginity and testing chastity in the Middle Ages. Psychology Press, 2000. ———. Performing Virginity and Testing Chastity in the Middle Ages. Psychology Press, 2000. Kessler, Gwynn. Conceiving Israel: The Fetus in Rabbinic Narratives. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009. Kulp, Joshua. Mahadurah ʻim perush ha-sugyot le-pereḳ Betulah niśet. Universitat Bar- Ilan, 2002. ———. “The Participation of a Court in the Jewish Conversion Process.” The Jewish Quarterly Review 94, no. 3. New Series (Summer 2004): 437-470. Levine, Baruch A. Numbers 21-36. Doubleday, 2000. Maimonides, Moses. Commentary to the Mishnah: Tractate Berakhot. Fez, Morocco, 1168. Margaliot, Reuben. Le-Ḥeker Shemot Ṿe-Khinuyim Ba-Talmud. Yerushalayim: Mosad ha-Rav Ḳuḳ, 720. Nathan ben Jehiel, and Benjamin ben Immanuel Mussafia. He-’Arukh u-Musaf he- ’Arukh. Vol. 2. 3 vols. Bnei Brak: Pardes, 1992. Neusner, Jacob. A History of the Jews in Babylonia. Vol. 2. Leiden: Brill, 1968. ———. The Bavli’s Intellectual Character: the Generative Problematic : in Bavli Baba Qamma Chapter One and Bavli Shabbat Chapter One. Scholars Press, 1992. ———. The Bavli’s One Statement: The Metapropositional Program of Babylonian Talmud Tractate Zebahim Chapters One and Five. Scholars Press, 1991. ———. The Rules of Composition of the Talmud of Babylonia: The Cogency of the Bavli’s Composite. Scholars Press, 1991.

208

Niditch, Susan. Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature. Louiseville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996. Norris, Christopher, and Nigel Mapp, eds. William Empson: The Critical Achievement. Cambridge University Press, 1993. Rabkin, Norman. Shakespeare and the Problem of Meaning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981. Riffaterre, Michael. Semiotics of Poetry. Indiana University Press, 1978. Rofé, Alexander. Deuteronomy: Issues and Interpretation. Continuum International Publishing Group, 2002. Roy, Nilanjana S. “For Indian Rape Laws, Change Is Slow to Come.” The New York Times, September 21, 2010, sec. World / Asia Pacific. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/world/asia/22iht-letter.html?_r=1. Rubenstein, Jeffrey L. Rabbinic Stories. Paulist Press, 2002. ———. Talmudic Stories: Narrative Art, Composition, and Culture. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999. Samuel ben David Moses. Sefer Naḥalat Shivʻah. Amshṭilerdam [i.e. Amsterdam]: S. ben D.M. ha-Leṿi, 427AD. Schoeler, Gregor, James Edward Montgomery, and Uwe Vagelpohl. The Oral and the Written in Early Islam. Taylor & Francis, 2006. Schremer, Adiel. Zakhar U-Neḳevah Barʻam: Ha-Niśuʼim Be-Shilhe Yeme Ha-Bayit Ha- Sheni Uvi-Teḳufat Ha-Mishnah Ṿeha-Talmud. Yerushalayim: Merkaz Zalman Shazar le-Toldot Yiśraʼel, 2003. Septimus, Bernard. “Iterated Quotation Formulae in Talmudic Narrative and Exegesis.” In The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel, edited by James L. Kugel, Hindy Najman, and Judith Hood Newman, 371-398. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Septimus, Zvi. “Trigger Words and Simultexts: The Experience of Reading the Bavli.” In Wisdom of Bat Sheva: in memory of Beth Samuels, edited by Barry S. Wimpfheimer, 163-185. KTAV Pub. House, Inc., 2009. Shemesh, Aharon. Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis. University of California Press, 2009. ———. “Šôgēg Qārôb lě-Mēzîd: lě-Bîrûr Yěṣîrātô Šel ha-Mûśāg běTôrat hā-ʾamôrāʾîm.” Šěnātôn ha-Mišpāt ha-ʿibrî 20 (1997): 399-428. :In Tsofnat Paʻneaḥ ”.מסורות הלכה ופירוש המשותפות למגילות מדבר יהודה ולספרות חז"ל“ .——— Meḥḳere Lashon Mugashim Le-Elishaʻ Ḳimron Bi-Melot Lo Shishim Ṿe-Ḥamesh Shanah, 383-394. Beʼer Shevaʻ: Hotsaʼat ha-sefarim shel Universiṭat Ben-Guryon ba-Negev, 2009. Simpson, J., and E. Weiner. Oxford English Dictionary. 20 vols. Har/Cdr. Oxford University Press, USA, 2009. Sokoloff, Michael. A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. ———. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period. JHU Press, 2002.

209

Sommer, Benjamin D. A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40-66. Stanford University Press, 1998. Spinoza, Benedictus de. Theological-Political Treatise. Translated by Samuel Shirley and Seymour Feldman. Hackett Publishing, 2001. Steinmetz, Devora. “Agada Unbound: Intere-Agadic Characterization of Sages in the Bavli and Implications for Reading Agada.” In Creation and composition: the contribution of the Bavli redactors (Stammaim) to the Aggada, edited by Jeffrey L. Rubenstein, 293-338. Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Stern, David. “Rhetoric and Midrash: The Case of the Mashal.” Prooftexts 1, no. 3 (1981): 261-291. Strack, Hermann Leberecht, Günter Stemberger, and Markus N. A. Bockmuehl. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. Fortress Press, 1996. Valler, Shulamit. Women and Womanhood in the Talmud. Translated by Betty Sigler Rozen. Brown Judaic Studies 321. Atlanta, Ga: Scholars Press, 1999. Vidas, Moulie. “The Bavli’s Discussion of Genealogy in Qiddushin IV.” In Antiquity in Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Pasts in the Greco-Roman World, edited by Gregg Gardner and Kevin Lee Osterloh, 285-326. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 123. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Vij, Krishan. Textbook Of Forensic Medicine And Toxicology: Principles And Practice. Elsevier India, 2008. Wimpfheimer, Barry Scott. Narrating the Law: A Poetics of Talmudic Legal Stories. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011.

210

Appendix A: Rashi's Commentary to Baba Metzia 84a (Chapter Four)

Rashi, whose commentary generally smoothes over the rough edges of a given Talmudic passage, offers two ways of reading this text, albeit in a muddled fashion.

Between them: between the two of them, under their stomachs, because their stomachs were large. ... Are not to (להזקק) yours: because you are not able to be attached your wives. Theirs are greater than ours: our wives' stomachs are bigger than ours. As is the man so is his strength: sex organ. Another version of theirs is 586 .is greater than a man's (תאוה) greater:585F a woman's desire All the more so: That her desire is greater and you are not 587 attached to them and they have sex with others.586F Love 588 squeezes the flesh: and since their desire587F is greater than ours both of our flesh become compressed.

The mode through which Rashi presents his two readings of the story is somewhat laconic and jumbled. Generally, when Rashi presents two readings of a Talmudic text he presents each one fully, one after the other, and neatly inserted within the order of the actual Talmudic text. In this instance, Rashi introduces his second reading of the story while explaining the rabbis' response, "as is the man, so is his strength." He then returns to explain the noblewoman's comment "all the more so" only according to the second explanation of "as is the man, so is his strength." He then concludes his comments on this story by explaining the rabbis' alternate retort of "love compresses the flesh," but only according to his second explanation. This leaves the reader of Rashi to wonder whether Rashi is commenting on a textual version of the story that matches the order of events as they are presented in the printed edition. It is quite possible that Rashi had a different version of the dialogue in front of him and in his version the noblewoman's ʾîkâʾ ,איכא דאמרי) comment "all the more so" is actually included in the alternate readings

586 This phrase is embedded within Rashi's commentary and does not appear as a separate lemma

587 The paratactic nature of this sentence leaves its exact meaning vague. I have therefore translated it as it "שתאותה מרובה ואינכם נזקקין להן ונבעלת לאחרים" :appears in the Hebrew

is used here. Rashi's text contains some obvious textual corruption and שתאותם Oddly, the masculine 588 in some versions of this text [see שלהן is also used, here, instead of שלהם ) .inaccurate grammatical forms version quoted in Ein Yaakov.])

211

děʾāmrî) Additionally, the actual text of Rashi which has made its way down to us is certainly corrupt and that corruption was most probably caused by later copyists either misunderstanding or intentionally trying to veil Rashi's intended explanation of this passage.589

Accordingly, Rashi proposes two different ways of reading this exchange and, quite possibly, each of his readings is only meant to address one of the alternate answers ʾîkâʾ děʾāmrî). His first explanation of the meaning of) איכא דאמרי given by the rabbis as the dialogue is as follows. The rabbis' stomachs were so big that a herd of oxen could pass beneath them. The noblewoman comments that their sons are not theirs because זקק with their wives. The root (להזקק) they would not be able to have sexual intercourse implies "connection" or "attachment" and, according to this first reading of Rashi, it would seem that the noblewoman questions the possibility that such fat people would physically be able to have sexual intercourse, to physically attach themselves to their wives. Presumably, the distance created by the fatness of their stomachs, a distance that allows a herd of oxen to pass beneath them without touching them, would also create a distance large enough, between each rabbi and his wife, to preclude the physical possibility of sexual intercourse. According to the first explanation of Rashi, the dialogue continues with the rabbis retorting that their wives' stomachs are larger than their own stomachs. Presumably, and here one must read into Rashi's interpretation, the rabbis respond that if fatness precludes sexual intercourse then how is it that their wives, who have larger stomachs than them, were able to have children altogether? The very fact that their wives were able to get pregnant demonstrates that fatness does not prevent the possibility of having sexual intercourse. Since Rashi never explains what the noblewoman meant when she responded "All the more so" we have to read into his commentary. Presumably, the noblewoman meant that although their wives indeed had found some way to overcome the obstacle of their large stomachs and have sexual intercourse, they certainly could not have had that sexual intercourse with a partner the size of these rabbis. Here the image that began the story, of the distance created between the two rabbis when standing stomach to stomach, is recalled to demonstrate the impossibility of two people of that size having sexual intercourse—in this case, each rabbi and his wife. According to this reading, Rashi's first explanation of the rabbis' first response, "As is the man, so is his strength," meaning that the rabbis have extremely large sex organs, makes perfect sense. Although the combination of the largeness of each partner's stomach would seem to make sexual intercourse impossible, a very long penis could make up that gap. While Rashi offers no comment for the alternate response of "Love compresses the flesh" according to his first

589 This is evident in the mixing up of the genders in Rashi's comments to "All the more so" (see footnote 588.)

212

explanation, the rabbis' alternate response seems fairly obvious. Although it would seem physically impossible for two extremely fat people to have sexual intercourse with each othe, one must not overlook the power of love to overcome such obstacles. In other words, when there is a will there is a way. It must be pointed, however, that it is quite îkâʾ děʾāmrî) as only applying ,איכא דאמרי) possible that Rashi sees this alternate answer to his second explanation. Rashi's second, and less compelling, explanation of the dialogue between the rabbis and the noblewoman would go as follows. The noblewoman's intent, when she tells the rabbis that their children must not be theirs, is that the rabbis are so grotesque that there is no way that they would be able to remain attached to their wives. According to this reading, "attached" does not mean the possibility of sexual intercourse at any point in time but rather the likelihood of someone so ugly being able to avoid being cuckolded. because you are not able to become attached to) שאינכם יכולין להזקק לנשותיכם The phrases you are not attached to them), which appear respectively) ואינכם נזקקין להן your wives) and under Rashi's headings "Are not yours" and "All the more so," do not refer to an individual act of sexual intercourse but rather "attached" connotes something different: the viability of a monogamous relationship. The connotation of these phrases resemble more closely the use of a similar phrase later in the tractate. At Baba Metzia 107b a Beraita recounts thirteen positive things said about eating bread in the morning. The and he will be attached to his wife and not) ונזקק לאשתו ואינו מתאוה לאשה אחרת twelfth is desire another woman.) Although Rashi explains the phrase there to refer to actual sexual intercourse — "if he is a man who [has sexual] thoughts, and because his heart is good in the morning, because he ate a bit, he will solicit his wife; and when he goes out to the market and sees women he will not desire them" — the connotation is a type of sexual intercourse that prevents seeking sex outside of a monogamous relationship. When the rabbis respond that their wives' sexual desires are stronger than their own, their intention is to explain that their wives have such a strong desire for sex that they are blind to the grotesqueness of their husbands when having sex with them. The noblewoman then responds that if their wives have such strong sexual desires then they are certainly cheating on them with other men. At this point, Rashi's explanation according איכא דאמרי becomes confusing. It is unclear if Rashi intends to explain the first to this line of thought. If indeed he does, then the phrase "as is the man, so is his strength" would refer, counter-intuitively, to the sexual desires of their wives and reiterate that their wives' sexual desires are so strong that they blind them to the grotesqueness of their husbands bodies. Rashi certainly intends to explain the second îkâʾ děʾāmrî, alternate answer) according to this second explanation, as he) איכא דאמרי explicitly uses the term "desire" in his explanation to the words "love squeezes the flesh." However, it is unclear what the rabbis retort is in that case. What exactly is it about the fact that the wives' desire is greater than their husbands' desires that leads to the compressing of the flesh? Additionally, if the rabbis meant that their wives' desires were greater than their own, and not that their wives were fatter than them, then why would he 590 589F Rashi's?(בשר שנינו נדחקו) talk about the flesh of both of them becoming compressed

.from manuscript evidence בשר שנינו נדחק The Oz Vehadar Talmud corrects this to 590 213

second explanation also leads to the continuation of a commentatorial tradition that reads the second paragraph, which talks about the size of various rabbis' organs, as instead 591 referring to the size of their desire.590F Despite extensive reading into Rashi's explanation, it is still difficult to make it sit well according to the Talmudic text that we have before us. It is also difficult to see an internal cohesion to Rashi's commentary when viewed alone.

591 See for example the commentaries of Levi ibn Habib (c. 1480- c. 1545) and Solomon Luria (1510- 1573).

214

Appendix B: Background Information For Niddah 15a (Chapter Five) In order to understand Rashi's comments in that manner one would have to aHowever, menstruant" if one or attempts "period to of") נדה .posit a hypotheticalThe following reconstruction summary of theof Rashi's laws of text have (Niddah) before in נדה menstruation")understand Rashi's are presentedcommentary in aas unified it stands voice, when as juxtaposed if one can readto the tractate text we theus then Bavli one and must extract read concrete into his lawscommentary and principles and make from assumptions it. Nothing about can be what further he could from thehave truth. meant. For nearly every Tannaitic dispute found in this tractate there can be found other Tannaitic disputes as to how to interpret those disputes. Then there are Amoraic disputes as to how to interpret those Tannaitic disputes. And then there is the problem of the Bavli hypothesizing about this material over and over, from different angles and directions, assuming one position while asking a question, adapting another while giving its answer, and never really coming to any conclusion as to how it actually feels about its own theories. Finally there are countless ways to interpret each of the Bavli's musings; these interpretations are found in the hundreds, if not thousands, of commentaries, that have ventured to sort out all of these details over many hundreds of years. Although master codifiers have indeed attempted to establish harmonizing and concrete laws, the principles they use to accomplish this feat are ones aimed at adjudication and therefore, most of the time, run counter to principles of interpretation. To sort out their task, these codifiers leave behind all of the hypothetical theories, minority opinions, and most importantly the tone of the voice of the anonymous narrator of the Bavli. That said, the purpose of this summary is not to provide all of the information necessary to understand Niddah) text that I quote but rather to) נדה all of the interpretive possibilities at play in the provide the minimal framework for understanding what is important about it for Ketubot 16a.

The fifteenth chapter of Leviticus deals with the laws of genital discharges, both as they relate to a male and a female. Two types of discharges are discussed for each. The first part of the chapter (15:1-15) deals with the laws of a man who has a "flow" coming out from his genitals. (Although "genitals" is understood the actual Hebrew text 592 ([ Should a man has a flow from his genitals...591F].אִישׁ כִּי יִהְיֶה זָב מִבְּשָׂרוֹ... :merely states This "flow" has generally been understood to refer to gonorrhea but can probably refer to any of a number of other ailments. In such a case the man is ritually impure and remains so for an additional seven days after the discharge has stopped. The second part of the chapter (15:16-18) discusses a seminal emission. In the case of a seminal emission a male must immerse himself in water and he remains ritually impure until evening. If the seminal emission happened during sexual intercourse then, in such a case, the female also must immerse herself and she too remains ritually impure until evening. The third part of the chapter (15:19-24) deals with normal menstruation. The opening sentence of this And a woman) וְאִשָּׁה כִּי תִהְיֶה זָבָה דָּם יִהְיֶה זֹבָהּ בִּבְשָׂרָ הּ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תִּהְיֶה בְנִדָּתָהּ... :section reads

".literally means "flesh." However, here it is used a euphemism for "genitals בשר The word 592

215

who has a flow of blood, her flow being in her genitals,593

The Biblical verse (Leviticus 15:18), cited above, that discusses the ritual impurity of a menstruating woman implies that such impurity begins while the blood is The Rabbis interpreted this to mean that the woman is in a state .( ִבּ ְב שָׂ רָ הּ) still in her body even if (מקור) of ritual impurity from the time that the blood left the interior of the womb it has not yet exited her body (Mishnah Niddah 5:1). That is, if the blood resides in her but has not yet exited from it. Therefore, the Rabbis debate as to how (בית החיצון) vagina to assess the onset of a menstruating woman's ritual impurity. The practical application of these laws revolves around the ritual purity status of items that the woman might have touched after the onset of her menstrual period. The first Mishnah of tractate Niddah details three opinions: Shammai says that a woman is only impure from the moment she see the blood, but not retroactively. Shammai is not concerned about the possibility that there might have been a lag in the time between the blood leaving her uterus and the time that she saw it; Hillel says that the woman is impure retroactively for all of the time that passed since the last time she checked herself. The Sages say that she is impure retroactively for a period of twenty four hours (unless she had checked herself within those twenty for hours, in which case she would only be retroactively impure from the The Mishnah goes .מעת לעת last time she checked.) The twenty four hour period is called on to explain that this law only applies to women who do not have a fixed menstrual cycle. However if a woman's menstrual cycle follows a fixed time period (or if she is she a young girl who has never before menstruated, a pregnant woman, a nursing woman, or one who is post-menopause) then her ritual impurity only begins from the moment that she sees blood. The second chapter of Mishnah Niddah begins with a discussion of the type of physical inspection that must be done after sexual intercourse to determine if the woman had been menstruating at the time of intercourse. The cloth used to perform the 594 witnesses.593F Both the ,עדים inspection, upon which the "evidence" is found, are called

593 See previous footnote.

as "rag." The 'Arukh cites a verse from Isaiah (64:5) as עד Some commentators have translated the word 594 translated by Anchor Bible as "All our righteous acts like a filthy) וכבגד עִדִּים כל צדקותינו :semi-prooftext רְ בָבָה כְּצֶמַ ח הַשָּׂ דֶ ה נְתַ תִּ י� (rag.") Another possibility along these lines derives from a verse in Ezekiel (16:7 I have made you myriad like the growth of the) וַ תִּ רְ בִּ י וַ תִּ גְדְּ לִ י וַ תָּ ב ֹאִ י בַּ עֲ דִ י עֲ דָ יִים שָׁדַיִם נָכֹנוּ וּשְׂעָרֵ � צִמֵּחַ וְאַתְּ עֵרֹם וְעֶרְ יָה your breasts have been formed and your ; עֲ דִ י עֲ דָ י ִים field; And you increased and grew big and arrived at as עֲ דִ י עֲ דָ י ִים hair has grown and you were completely naked.) Here Brown, Driver and Briggs translate meaning ,עדי unto menstruation" which they explain as "maturity." The derivation comes from" "ornaments" — the assumption being that the "ornaments" of the woman in this verse must be the signs of means "testing בגד עדים actually means "rag" in that verse. Rather עד maturity I do not believe that the word בגד .עדד ,in that instance actually derives from the word for witness or evidence עד garment" and the word therefore literally means "a garment used for evidence" and it is referring to a rag used as evidence of עדים 216

man and the woman wipe their genitals with a cloth after sexual intercourse and inspect the cloth for blood. If it is discovered, through this inspection, that they had indeed had sex while the woman was menstruating then they would be required to bring an animal sacrifice as an atonement. Additionally, both the man and the woman become ritually impure for a period of seven days. Mishnah Niddah 2:2 discusses three scenarios: a) If blood is found on the man's [testing cloth] then they are both ritually impure for seven days and each must bring a sacrifice; b) If blood is found on the woman's [testing cloth] 595 594F after intercourse then they are both ritually impure for seven days(אותיום) immediately and each must bring a sacrifice; c) If blood is found on the woman's [testing cloth] only in the event that the woman did not check herself immediately ,(לאחר זמן) after some time 596 after sexual intercourse, then they are both doubtfully impure595F and are exempt from bringing a sacrifice. לאחר ) "Mishnah 2:3 inquires as to how much time is meant by "after [some] time and answers that it means enough time so that the woman can descend from the bed (זמן and wash her face. This Mishnah is defining the law of the previous Mishnah (2:2) to be a case where she does not check herself while in bed but does check herself immediately upon leaving the bed. The Mishnah (2:3) then continues to cite a dispute as to what would happen if she checks herself after the amount of time that it takes to leave the bed and wash her face. The first, anonymous, opinion, attributed to the majority Sages, says that in such a case she is ritually impure retroactively for a period of twenty four hours 597 596F however she does not render the man who had intercourse with her during;(מעת לעת) that twenty four hour period ritually impure. Rabbi Akiva dissents on this point and says that she even renders the man who had intercourse with her within the past twenty four hours ritually impure.

menstruation. Additionally, the vocalized Mishnah manuscripts (Kaufmann and Parma 2596) both vocalize in all occurrences in the tractate (1:1; 1:7; and 2:1). See, also, footnote 315. It is quite possible עֵ דִ ים as עדים as "testing garment" stems from the relationship that menstruation has with time (as in the בגד עדים that means "repeat," "return," or "go again." It is this root which is the basis for עוד word "period"). The root "as "appointed time מועד noun) mean appoint, as in) עדה verb) and) יעד as "festival." Likewise, the roots עיד or "set time."

immediately"). As is the case with") לאלתר The 'Arukh points out that this is a Greek word meaning 595 most Greek words that make their way into the Talmud, the copyist tradition, unaware of the correct pronunciation or spelling of these foreign words, ends up corrupting the text often irretrievably. Here the 'Arukh provides an alternate spelling than the one that appears in our text and it is easy see which Greek .at Niddah 14b וסת instead of אוותיאוס Ευθέως = at once. The 'Arukh also has = אוותיאוס :word he refers to

596 Doubtful impurity is its own category with its own rules. For example, if someone is doubtfully impure and they touch terumah then the terumah is secluded but not burnt. (See Mishnah Terumot 8:8)

597 This is in accordance with the opinion of the Sages discussed in the first Mishnah of the tractate. In that Mishnah three opinions are mentioned. Shammai says that a woman is only impure from the moment she discovers blood and not retroactively. Hillel says that the woman is impure retroactively for all of the time that passed since the last time she checked. The Sages say that she is impure retroactively for a period of twenty four hours (unless she had checked herself within those twenty for hours, in which case she would only be retroactively impure from the last time she checked.)

217

The Mishnah then goes on to present a scenario in which the Sages would agree with the ruling of Rabbi Akiva and even render the man who had sexual intercourse with (כתם) her ritually impure. This is a case where she at some point discovered a bloodstain on an article of clothing rather than finding blood on her testing cloth. If a bloodstain is found on an article of clothing in a place that it is deemed likely to be menstrual blood then the woman is deemed retroactively ritually impure from the time of that garment's last washing. (The laws of bloodstains are discussed at Mishnah Niddah 7:2 and 8:1.) Why would the Sages concede to Rabbi Akiva and render the man ritually impure in a case of bloodstains? The Bavli presents two Amoraim who interpret this concession of the Sages differently. In order to understand how each of these Amoraic readings of the Mishnah make sense it is necessary to understand how the laws of randomly finding bloodstains compare to the laws of finding blood immediately after intercourse. Whereas the Sages hold that if a woman finds blood on her testing cloth she is deemed retroactively impure for twenty four hours only if she does not have a fixed menstrual 598 cycle (or is one of four other categories of women,)597F there is a dispute among Tannaim as to what the Sages would say regarding a bloodstain. The majority opinion (expressed by Rabbi Ḥanina the son of Antigonus) is that the Sages hold the same opinion for bloodstains; they only render ritual impurity from the time that they are seen. Rabbi Meir believe that the Sages' ruling regarding blood does not apply to bloodstains. However, the Sages would be more strict in a case of bloodstains and retroactively render the woman ritually impure to the time that the garment was last washed. With this in mind, the Bavli presents the opinions of Rav and Shmuel regarding how to interpret the concession of the Sages to Rabbi Akiva in the Mishnah. What exactly do the Sages mean when they say that a woman who randomly finds a bloodstain renders her sexual partner ritually impure for seven days? Rav says that the man is rendered impure retroactively; Shmuel says that the Sages only meant so moving forward. The Bavli explains that Rav believes that "the Sages" in the Mishnah represents the opinion of Rabbi Meir who is more strict when dealing with bloodstains than with blood. Therefore, though the Sages would not render the man impure in a case where his sexual partner found blood on her testing cloth after the amount of time it takes for her to wash her face, they would, however, render this man impure if he had had sex with a woman during the period between when an article of clothing last was washed and when a bloodstain was found on that item. The Bavli explains Shmuel to believe that the Sages in the Mishnah follow the majority opinion, in contrast to that of Rabbi Meir, that bloodstains are no different that blood. Both bloodstains and blood only render impurity from the time that they are seen. Therefore when the Sages concede to Rabbi Akiva that the man is rendered impure for seven days in the case of bloodstains they only mean to say the following: The man is not rendered impure by any past sexual act with this woman, but rather he only rendered impure if he has sex with her after the time that she found the stain.

598 See Mishnah Niddah 1:3-5. Mishnah 3 lists: a) A virgin; b) A pregnant woman; c) A nursing woman; d) An old woman. Mishanyot 4 and 5 further define each of these categories.

218

The Bavli objects to Shmuel's reading of the Mishnah shall on remain the grounds in her that menstrual it completelyimpurity for undermines seven days.) the If value a man of has the sexual Sages' intercourse concession. with Of hercourse while the she Sages is would agreemenstruating, that a man then cannot he too have shall sex be with ritually a woman impure who for isseven now days. impure! The The fourth whole part debate of the waschapter only (15:25 regarding-30) dealsa case with where a woman a woman who subsequently has a discharge discovered of blood that outside she might of her have beennormal impure menstrual at some cycle. past In po suchint in a timecase duringshe is rituallywhich they impure slept and together. remains The so for Sages' an opinionadditional in seventhat case days was after that the the discharge woman ishas considered stopped. to have been impure for twenty four hours retroactively but that the man she had slept with was not. The Bavli answers that Shmuel's reading is not so obvious and therefore the Sages had to explicitly concede to Rabbi Akiva. Had they not done so, we might have thought that even if a man slept with a woman who was knowingly impure, because she found a bloodstain, the man would still not be rendered ritually impure. The logic behind this idea is that the Sages' initial ruling —that a woman who finds blood on her testing cloth after a long period of time is retroactively rendered impure for twenty four hours— was only a Rabbinic, rather than Biblical, decree. And, in that case, the reason they did not render the man who slept with her impure was owing to the fact that it was only a Rabbinic decree. Bloodstains, too, are only a Rabbinic decree; and therefore a woman who is rendered Rabbinically ritually impure via bloodstain would also be a case where she would not render the man who slept with her ritually impure. The Bavli is so satisfied with this explanation that it wonders why the Sages conceded in the first place. Why, according to Shmuel, would the Rabbis who do not generally differentiate between blood and bloodstains decide in this case to render the man ritually impure? At this point the legal principle of the 'slaughtered ox' is introduced.

219

Appendix C: An Aural Reading of Kiddushin 70, Highlighting Point of View (Chapter Six)

At the start of Scene 3 (line 35), Rav Naḥman asks Rav Yehudah to reveal the purpose of his visit.

RAV NAḤMAN: What [is the purpose of] your travel here?

Rav Yehudah, in Scene 2, made it unmistakably clear how annoyed he was to have been forced to travel to Nehardeʿa and appear as a defendant in Rav Naḥman’s court. When Rav Naḥman asks Rav Yehudah to state his purpose, Rav Yehudah sharply retorts that it was actually Rav Naḥman himself who has demanded his appearance in court.

RAV YEHUDAH: You sent me a subpoena .(ṭasqāʾ děhazměnûtāʾ) טסקא דהזמנותא document

טסקא דהזמנותא The word that Rav Yehudah uses to describe the summons is hazměnûtāʾ) means) הזמנותא ṭasqāʾ děhazměnûtāʾ). Although the Aramaic word) טסקא ṭasqāʾ) does not mean "document." In the Bavli, the word) טסקא ",summons" (ṭasqāʾ) refers to the Persian land tax. However, if Rav Yehudah had meant to say that Rav Naḥman had sent him a Persian land tax summons then he would have reversed the hazměnûtāʾ děṭasqāʾ). The words as) הזמנותא דטסקא order of the words and called it a ;ṭasqāʾ děhazměnûtāʾ), are somewhat incoherent) טסקא דהזמנותא ,they appear before us they might awkwardly translate as "Persian land tax of the summons." In Scene 1, at the time that Rav Yehudah initially received the summons (line 10), the far more coherent .pîtqāʾ děhazmānāʾ), meaning "document of summons," were used) פיתקא דהזמנא words ṭasqāʾ) טסקא דהזמנותא What is one to make of the incoherence of the phrase děhazměnûtāʾ)? The incoherence itself marks, for the reader, a moment of difference. ,pîtqāʾ) in Scene 1, it is now, in Scene 3) פיתקא Whereas this document was labeled ṭasqāʾ.) This moment of difference, coupled with the fact that the reader) טסקא labeled has just witnessed a diatribe regarding the particularities of naming objects, alerts the reader to the subtle linguistic nuances that are occurring in the text. It is through these subtle textual differences that the Bavli expresses alternating points of view; these slight textual shifts also highlight an important facet of the nature of the power struggle between Rav Yehudah and Rav Naḥman.

220

As a character in the Bavli, Rav Naḥman is a member of the house of the exilarch and the senior judge who presides over the exilarch’s court.599 In addition, it was the exilarch’s court that was responsible for collecting the Persian land tax from the Jews. In all probability, Rav Naḥman annually sent out hundreds, if not thousands, of Persian land tax summonses and well have been accustomed to the presence of many disgruntled Jewish constituents in his court— if not at home, while working in his garden, as appears to be the case with Rav Yehudah. In this narrative, Rav Naḥman is portrayed as truly ignorant of the purpose of Rav Yehudah’s appearance at his home. The five stages of this encounter in Scene 3 are presented below.

i. RAV NAḤMAN: What [is the purpose of] your travel here? טסקא ) ii. RAV YEHUDAH: You sent me a tax subpoena .(ṭasqāʾ děhazměnûtāʾ ,דהזמנותא iii. RAV NAḤMAN: Seeing that I am not knowledgeable in šûtāʾ), would I have sent you ,שותא) your manner of speech ?(ṭasqāʾ děhazměnûtāʾ ,טסקא דהזמנותא) a tax subpoena iv. [RAV YEHUDAH] pulls out the subpoena document děyasqāʾ děhazměnûtāʾ) from his chest ,דיסקא דהזמנותא) [pocket] and shows it to [RAV NAḤMAN.]

599 Rav Naḥman’s relationship to the exilarchate is of note in this passage; and that relationship is depicted rêš gělûtāʾ). I) ריש גלותא bê něśîâ) rather than the more expected) בי נשיאה through the use of the term bê něśîâ) is the precise term used to depict the close yet otherwise vague) בי נשיאה emphasize the fact that relationship between Rav Naḥman and the exilarchate. (This nuance will be addressed later in this chapter once the Berakhot 27b28a simultext, dealing with Rabban Gamliel's removal from the office of the Presidency, is introduced.) Is Rav Naḥman married to Yalta? Is Rabbah bar Avuha Yalta’s father? Is Rabbah bar Avuha the exilarch? The answers to these questions are vague and tension-filled throughout the Bavli corpus. However, the one thing that is clear throughout the Bavli is that Rav Naḥman has some inside connection to the exilarchate and that when this relationship is at one point clarified Rav Naḥman is ḥatnêh děbê něśîâ, son in-law to the house of the presidency). Rav Naḥman in this) חתניה דבי נשיאה called story is very much the husband of Yalta and the son-in-law of the exilarch. This fact is certainly proven by the explicit equation of Yalta with Rav Naḥman's wife in Oxford 248, Munich 95, and Spanish Print. A summary of the scholarly opinions as to the nature of the relationship between Rav Naḥman and Yalta can be found in Ilan, Mine and yours are hers. pp. 121-129. Catherine Hezser offers an alternative explanation closure, sěgîrût) methodology. Heszer denies the) סגירות of this statement that highlights Fraenkel's relationship between Rav Naḥman and the exilarchate —even though it is attested to elsewhere in the Bavli— and therefore reads the attack against Rav Yehudah as an attack against the Rabbinate in general, with the Rabbinate seen as the local arm of the exilarchate. [Hezser, “The Slave of a Scholar is Like a Scholar.”, p. 192.] According to my reading, in contrast to Heszer's, Rav Huna’s advice only makes sense to the reader who is aware that Ran Naḥman’s father in-law is the exilarch, a detail alluded to elsewhere in the Bavli. It is precisely this type of “gapping” that proves that the Bavli assumes that its reader knows the entire Bavli and that each individual passage in the Bavli must be read alongside all other passages in the Bavli. The trigger word/simultext reading effect, which will be highlighted (as it applies to Kiddushin 70) in the latter part of this chapter , highlights certain passages that the reader is encouraged to read alongside other particula passages.

221

v. RAV YEHUDAH: Behold the man and behold the .(dasqāʾ ,דסקא) document

Since Rav Naḥman is both completely ignorant as to the nature of Rav Yehudah's visit and also accustomed to dealing with tax complaints, it therefore makes perfect sense ṭasqāʾ) when he replies, in line iii, "Seeing) טסקא that Rav Naḥman would use the word šûtāʾ), would I have sent ,שותא) that I am not knowledgeable in your manner of speech ṭasqāʾ) subpoena?" According to the text that we have before us, Rav) טסקא you a tax Naḥman asks Rav Yehudah to explain the true purpose of his visit; Rav Yehudah tells Rav Naḥman that he wants to deal with a tax issue; and Rav Naḥman responds by telling Rav Yehudah that he has no jurisdiction over him regarding taxes. What is confusing about this account of what takes place in the passage is why would Rav Yehudah use the ṭasqāʾ) (line ii) when explaining the purpose of his visit? Unlike Rav) טסקא word Naḥman, Rav Yehudah knew that the purpose of his visit had nothing to do with taxes. After the give and take regarding the Persian land tax summons we are told by the děyasqāʾ) summons from his chest pocket) דיסקא narrator that Rav Yehudah removed the and then proceeds to deliver his next line, which reads: “Behold the man and behold the דיסקא dasqāʾ.)” The proper Babylonian Aramaic word for a document is actually) דסקא 600 (děyasqāʾ).599F The reader has been presented with, in the course of a few lines, three דסקא děyasqāʾ); and) דיסקא ;(ṭasqāʾ) טסקא :different ways of referring to the same object (dasqāʾ). Most importantly, none of these three are related to the original name given for .(pîtqāʾ) פיתקא the subpoena document when it first makes its appearance in Scene 1 as The differences between these four appellations for the same object echo the conflict of Scene 2. One can imagine Rav Yehudah, at this point, asking Rav Naḥman: "How come "!(děyasqāʾ) דיסקא pîtqāʾ)? Why not say) פיתקא ṭasqāʾ)? Why not say) טסקא you say If we imagine hearing rather than reading this Scene 3 dialogue, it is easier to [(dasqāʾ) דסקא děyasqāʾ); and) דיסקא ;(ṭasqāʾ) טסקא] understand how similar these words 601 ;d) are easily mistaken for one another) ד ṭ) and) ט sound. The dental minimal pairs600F y) is easily swallowed when two people of different dialects encounter) י and the palatal one another in dialogue. It is not unheard of in the Bavli for one character to misinterpret

600 דיסקא This explains why earlier in our text, in line 10, there appear textual witnesses do not have dasqāʾ)) דסקא דזמינותא ṭasqāʾ dězěmînût') [MS Munich 95] and) טסקא דזמינות' děyasqāʾ), but have instead) dasqāʾ) ealier, in line) דסקא ṭasq') and) טסק' dězěmînûtāʾ) [MS Vatican 111]. These textual witnesses have pîtqāʾ děhazmānāʾ). However, our text) פיתקא דהזמנא ,instead of what actually appears in our text ,10 manages a more effective poetic technique by avoiding mention of any of the other terms used later to děyasqāʾ). Our text avoids involvement in) דיסקא ,(dasqāʾ) דסקא,(ṭasqāʾ) טסקא describe this document, the pîtqāʾ) which shares the "qa" ending but is different) פיתקא the later word play and instead uses the word enough as to not divert attention from the reader’s later reception to the nuances and difference of the .(děyasqāʾ) דיסקא dasqāʾ), and) דסקא ,(ṭasqāʾ) טסקא words

601 In the field of phonology, D and T are identified as voiced/unvoiced minimal pairs. They are identical in all ways except that one is voiced and one is not. The other consonantal switches in this passage (B/P and G/Q) are also voiced/unvoiced minimal pairs. I owe this insight to Chana Kronfeld.

222

602 another on the basis of dialect.601F Once the reader imagines the characters speaking these words, it becomes clear that issues of dialect and pronunciation are just as important as alcoholic beverage, ʾanpak) (21) and) אנפק issues of language in this passage. The words alcoholic beverage, ʾanběgāʾ) (22), with their slightly shifted labial and guttural) אנבגא 603 minimal pairs,602F look far more different than they sound. Ultimately what these subtle syllable, vowel, and consonant switches accomplish is to bring the reader into a language game that highlights the theme of this passage. The character of Rav Naḥman is the supreme judge in the court of the exilarch and as such is responsible for collecting the Persian land tax. This is why Rav Naḥman hears the word .ṭasqāʾ) when responding to Rav Yehudah’s antagonistic presence in his court) טסקא Line ii does not represent what Rav Yehudah said but rather what Rav Naḥman hears Rav tax, ṭasqāʾ). Line iii represents what Rav Naḥman actually says in) טסקא ,Yehudah say tax, ṭasqāʾ) because he understandably) טסקא response. Rav Naḥman uses the word believes Rav Yehudah to be addressing an issue of taxes. When Rav Naḥman replies, šûtāʾ), would I ,שותא) Seeing that I am not knowledgeable in your manner of speech" ṭasqāʾ) subpoena?" Rav Naḥman is articulating a principle ,טסקא) have sent you a tax about jurisdiction. If he does not share the same speech as his fellow, then he is not the proper recipient or officiator of his fellow’s Persian land tax. Rav Naḥman’s jurisdiction tax, ṭasqāʾ) only extends) טסקא only extends as far as his speech (or parole) allows. The 604 speech, šûtāʾ).603F) ,שותא as far as the boundaries of the

602 See story about Baba the son of Buta, Nedarim 66b. This is an interesting simultext in the context of this paper as it has Baba the son of Buta, a rare character in the Bavli (who makes an appearance in the Baba Batra text that I treat in footnote 577) allowing himself to be hit on the head by a woman because she spoke a different dialect and was merely following her husband’s instructions through a misunderstanding of her husband’s dialect. The relevance of this point will be better understood once the trigger word/simultext reading strategy is explained later in the chapter. (This point is also relevant to footnote 577 below.)

[.(g) ג q) to) ק b), and) ב p) to) פ .i.e] 603

šûtāʾ) is a noun that means "speech" or "talk." The term is quite rare in the Bavli and) שותא The word 604 only appears a handful of times. In a couple of those instance, the term appears to mean speech as in a woman spins while) איתתא בהדי שותא פילכא discourse" An example of this type of usage is the phrase" engaged in a conversation [šûtāʾ].) However, in other instances the term appears to mean the particular type of language being spoken. An example of this type of usage appears at Sukkah 56b when a proverb The speech [šûtāʾ] used by a) שותא דינוקא בשוקא או דאבוה או דאימיה :kěděʾāmrî ʾînšê) is quoted ,כדאמרי אינשי) child in the marketplace originates from either his father or mother.) In the Kiddushin 70 passage, the word obviously carries the connotation of a particular dialect. However, if we were to conceive of the word referring to sociolect rather than dialect then Rav Naḥman can be seen as, at the same time, effacing his own power over the various parties involved in the dispute while holding himself above Rav Yehudah. ,(š ʿ ʾ) ܫܥܐ š ʿ y, š ʾ y), from the Syriac) שעי, שאי šûtāʾ) with the verb) שותא Sokoloff equates the noun] meaning to speak, tell. If such an association is indeed correct then one would be forced to understand the šûtāʾ) in this context to mean that Rav Naḥman is saying "Seeing that we cannot engage in) שותא noun speech with each other, would I have sent you a summons?" Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods, 1167.]

223

When Rav Yehudah, in line 36 (ii), is seen opening his dialogue with the term dasqāʾ), which means nothing in Rav) דסקא ṭasqāʾ) the word he actually used was) טסקא טסקא Naḥman’s language. At this point in the drama the Bavli (or narrator) uses the word (d) ד ṭ) and) ט ṭasqāʾ) because that is the word that Rav Naḥman hears. The phonemes) are naturally adjusted in Rav Naḥman’s mind’s ear in order to find meaning in the word (ṭasqāʾ) in both lines (ii and iii) טסקא that he has just heard. The Bavli’s use of the word highlights this point. In the subsequent stage direction in line iv, when the prop is actually named by the Bavli, rather than a character, the Bavli switches to the word that .(děyasqāʾ) דיסקא ,represents official written language without accent or dialect However, in line v, when it is Rav Naḥman who names the object, the reader finally understands that Rav Naḥman, who speaks a different dialect than Rav Yehudah, dasqāʾ), a word which was earlier heard by Rav) דסקא děyasqāʾ) as) דיסקא pronounces ṭasqāʾ), a word of special significance in the world of the Bavli’s) טסקא Naḥman as character Rav Naḥman.

224

Appendix D: Synopsis of Baba Batra 15a (Chapter One)

225

Munich 95 1 א' מר יהוש' כת' ספרו Hamburg 165 יהושע כתב ספרו ושמנה פסוקין מן Paris 1337 אמ' מר יהושע כתב ספרו ושמונה פסוקים Vatican 115 אמר מר יהושע כתב ספרו ושמונה פסוקים Florence II-I-9 אמ' מר יהוש' כתב ספרו ושמונ' Escorial G-I-3 אמ' מר יהושע כת' את ספרו וכת' שמנה פסוקים Oxford 249 אמ' מר יהושע כתב ספרו וכתב שמונה פסוקים (Pesaro (1511 אמ' מר יהושע כתב ספרו ושמנה פסוקין (Venice (1521 אמר מר יהושע כתב ספרו ושמנה פסוקים Vilna אמר מר יהושע כתב ספרו ושמונה פסוקים

Munich 95 2 והכת' וימ' יהוש' בן נון עב' יי' דאסקי' אלעז' Hamburg 165 התורה Paris 1337 שבתורה Vatican 115 שבתורה Florence II-I-9 שבתורה Escorial G-I-3 שבתורה Oxford 249 שבתורה (Pesaro (1511 שבתורה (Venice (1521 שבתורה Vilna שבתורה

Munich 95 3 והכת' אלעז' בן אהר' הכהן מת דאסקי' פנח' זקנים[ו] תני' Hamburg 165 Paris 1337 תני' Vatican 115 תני' Florence II-I-9 תניא Escorial G-I-3 תניא Oxford 249 תנא (Pesaro (1511 תניא (Venice (1521 תניא Vilna תניא

Munich 95 4 כמא' דא' שמנ' פסוקי' שבתור' יהוש' כתבן דכתי' וימת Hamburg 165 כמאן דאמ' שמונה פסוקין שבתורה יהושע כתבן דכת' וימת Paris 1337 כמאן דאמ' שמונה פסוקי' שבתורה יהושע כתבן דתניא וימת Vatican 115 כמאן דאמ' שמונה פסוקי' שבתורה יהושע כתבן דתניא וימת Florence II-I-9 כמאן דאמ' שמונ' פסוקי' שבתורה יהוש' כתבן דתנו רבנן וימת Escorial G-I-3 כמאן דאמ' שמנה פסוקים שבתורה יהושע כתבן דתניא וימת Oxford 249 למאן דאמ' שמנה פסוקים שבתורה יהושע כתבן דכתי' וימת (Pesaro (1511 כמאן דאמ' שמונה פסוקין שבתורה יהושע כתבן דתניא וימת (Venice (1521 כמאן דאמר שמונה פסוקי' שבתורה יהושע כתבן דתניא וימת Vilna כמאן דאמר שמונה פסוקים שבתורה יהושע כתבן דתני' וימת

226

227

Munich 95 5 שם מש' עבד יי' אפש' מש' חי וכת' Hamburg 165 שם משה עבד ייי איפשר משה חי וכת' Paris 1337 שם משה עבד ייי איפשר משה חי וכתי' Vatican 115 שם משה עבד ייי איפשר משה חי וכתי' Florence II-I-9 ('יהוש) משה שם עבד ייי איפשר משה חי וכת' Escorial G-I-3 שם משה עבד יי' איפשר משה קיים וכת' Oxford 249 שם משה עבד ייי איפשר משה קיים והכת' (Pesaro (1511 משה עבד ה' איפשר משה מת וכתב (Venice (1521 שם מש' עבד ה' איפש' מש' מת וכת' Vilna שם משה עבד ה' אפשר משה (מת) וכתב

Munich 95 6 וימת א"ל ע"כ כת' משה Hamburg 165 וימת שם משה עבד ייי אלא עד כאן כתב משה Paris 1337 וימת שם משה אלא עד כאן כתב משה Vatican 115 וימת שם משה אלא עד כאן כתב משה Florence II-I-9 וימת אלא עד כאן כת' משה Escorial G-I-3 וימת שם משה עבד יי' אלא עד כאן כתב משה Oxford 249 וימת שם אלא עד כאן כתב משה (Pesaro (1511 וימת שם משה אלא עד כאן כתב משה (Venice (1521 וימת שם משה אלא עד כאן כתב משה Vilna וימת שם משה אלא עד כאן כתב משה

Munich 95 7 מכאן ואיל' כת' יהוש' דברי ר' יהוד' ואמרי לה א"ר Hamburg 165 מיכן ואילך כתב יהושע דברי ר' מאיר ואמרי לה ר' Paris 1337 מכאן ואילך כתב יהושע דברי ר' יהודה Vatican 115 מכאן ואילך כתב יהושע דברי ר' יהודה Florence II-I-9 מיכאן ואילך כת' יהוש' דברי ר' יהוד' ואמרי לה ר' Escorial G-I-3 מיכאן ואילך כתב יהושע דברי ר' יהודה ואמרי לה ר' Oxford 249 מיכן ואילך כתב יהושע דברי ר' יהודה ואמרי לה ר' (Pesaro (1511 מכאן ואילך כתב יהושע דברי רבי יהודה ואמרי לה רבי (Venice (1521 מכאן ואילך כתב יהושע דברי רבי יהודה ואמרי ליה רבי Vilna מכאן ואילך כתב יהושע דברי ר"י ואמרי לה ר'

Munich 95 8 נחמי' א"ל ר' שמעו' אפש' ספר תור' Hamburg 165 נחמיה אמ' לו ר' שמעון איפשר ספר תורה Paris 1337 אמ' לו ר' שמעון איפשר ספר תורה Vatican 115 אמ' לו ר' שמעון איפשר ספר תורה Florence II-I-9 נחמיה אמ' לו ר' שמע' איפשר ספר תורה Escorial G-I-3 נחמיה אמ' לו ר' שמעון איפשר ספר תורה Oxford 249 נחמיא אמ' לו ר' שמעון בן יוחי איפשר ספר תורה (Pesaro (1511 נחמיה אמ' לו רבי שמעון איפשר ספר תורה (Venice (1521 נחמיה אמרו לו רבי שמעון איפשר ספר תורה Vilna נחמיה אמר לו ר"ש אפשר ס"ת

228

Munich 95 9 חסר אות אח' וכת' לקח את ספ' התור' הזה Hamburg 165 חסר אות אחת וכת' לקוח את ספר התורה הזה Paris 1337 חסר אות אחת וכתיב לקח את ספ' התו' הזה Vatican 115 חסר אות אחת וכתיב לקח את ספ' התו' הזה Florence II-I-9 חסר אות אחת וכת' ל(ו)ק[ו]ח את ספר הזה Escorial G-I-3 חסרה אות וכתו' לקוח את ספר התורה ושמתם Oxford 249 מחסרא אות אחת והכת' לקוח ספר התורה הזאת (Pesaro (1511 חסר אות אחת וכתיב לקוח את ספר התורה הזה (Venice (1521 חסר אות אחת וכתיב לקוח את ספר התורה הזה Vilna חסר אות אחת וכתיב לקוח את ספר התורה הזה

Munich 95 10 אל' ע"כ הק"ב Hamburg 165 אלא עד כאן הקב'ה Paris 1337 אלא עד כאן הקב"ה Vatican 115 אלא עד כאן הקב"ה Florence II-I-9 אלא עד כאן הקבה Escorial G-I-3 (בארות) בארון אתו מצד אלא עד כאן הקב"ה Oxford 249 אלא עד כאן הקב"ה (Pesaro (1511 אלא עד כאן הקדוש ברוך הוא (Venice (1521 אלא עד כאן הקדוש ברוך הו' Vilna אלא עד כאן הקב"ה

Munich 95 11 או' ומש' כות' מכאן ואיל' הק"ב Hamburg 165 אומ' למשה ומשה כותב מיכן ואילך הקב'ה Paris 1337 אומ' ומשה או' וכותב מכאן ואילך הקב"ה Vatican 115 אומ' ומשה או' וכותב מכאן ואילך הקב"ה Florence II-I-9 אומ' ומשה כתב מיכאן ואילך הקבה Escorial G-I-3 או' ומשה כותב מיכאן ואילך הקב"ה Oxford 249 אומ' ומשה כותב מיכן ואילך א' הקב"ה (Pesaro (1511 אומ' ומשה כות' מכאן ואילך הקדו' ברו' (Venice (1521 אומ' ומשה אומר וכותב מכאן ואילך הקדוש ברוך Vilna אומר ומשה אומר וכותב מכאן ואילך הקב"ה

Munich 95 12 או' ומש' כות' בדמעו' כמ' שנ' להלן ויאמ' Hamburg 165 אומ' למשה ומשה כותב בדמע כמו שנ' להלן ויאמר Paris 1337 אומ' ומשה בדמע כמה שנ' להלן ויאמר Vatican 115 אומ' ומשה בדמע כמה שנ' להלן ויאמר Florence II-I-9 אומ' ומשה כתב בדמע כמה שנ' להלן ויאמר Escorial G-I-3 או' ומשה כותב בדמע כמה שנ' ויאמר Oxford 249 למשה ומשה כותב בדמע כמ' שנ' להלן ויאמר (Pesaro (1511 הו' אומ' ומשה כותב בדמע כמו שנ' להלן ויאמר (Venice (1521 הוא אומר ומשה כותב בדמע כמו שנאמר להלן ויאמר Vilna אומר ומשה כותב בדמע כמו שנאמר להלן ויאמר

229

Munich 95 13 לה' ברוך מפיו יקר' וגו' Hamburg 165 להם ברוך מפיו יקרא אלי את כל Paris 1337 להם ברוך מפיו יקרא וגו' Vatican 115 להם ברוך מפיו יקרא וגו' Florence II-I-9 ברוך מפיו יקרא אלי (ה) הספר) ובדיו) את כל Escorial G-I-3 להם ברוך מפי יקרא אלי את כל Oxford 249 אליו ברוך מפיו יקרא אלי את כל (Pesaro (1511 אליו ברוך מפיו יקרא אלי את (Venice (1521 אליו ברוך מפיו יקרא אלי את Vilna להם ברוך מפיו יקרא אלי את כל

Munich 95 14 Hamburg 165 הדברים האלה ואני כותב על הספר בדיו Paris 1337 Vatican 115 Florence II-I-9 הדברי' האלה ואני כותב על הספר ובדיו Escorial G-I-3 הדברים ואני כותב על הספר ובדיו אמ' מר Oxford 249 הדברים האלה ואני כותב על הספר בדיו (Pesaro (1511 הדברים הדברים האלה ואני כותב על הספר בדיו (Venice (1521 הדברים האלה ואני כותב על הספר בדיו Vilna הדברים האלה ואני כותב על הספר בדיו

Munich 95 15 Hamburg 165 Paris 1337 Vatican 115 Florence II-I-9 יהוש' כת' ספרו והכת' וימת יהוש' בן נון עבד ייי Escorial G-I-3 יהושע כת' ספרו והכתו' וימת יהושע בן נון Oxford 249 Pesaro (1511) Venice (1521) Vilna

Munich 95 16 Hamburg 165 Paris 1337 Vatican 115 Florence II-I-9 דאסקיה אלעז' והכת' ואלעז' בן אהרן מת דאסקיה פינחס וזקנים Escorial G-I-3 אסקיה אלעז' והכתו' ואלעז' בן אהרן מת ואסקיה פנחס וזקנים Oxford 249 Pesaro (1511) Venice (1521) Vilna

230

Munich 95 17 כמאן אזל' הא דא"ר יהוש' בר אב' א' רב Hamburg 165 כמאן] אזלא הא דאמ' ר' יהושע בר אבא אמ' רב Paris 1337 כמאן אזלא הא דאמ' רב יהושע בר אבא אמ' רב Vatican 115 כמאן אזלא הא דאמ' רב יהושע בר אבא אמ' רב Florence II-I-9 כמאן אזלא הא דאמ' רב יהוש' בר אבא אמ' רב Escorial G-I-3 כמאן אזלא הא דאמ' ר' יהושע בר אבא אמ' רב Oxford 249 כמאן אזלא הא דא"ר יהושע בן אבא אמ' רב (Pesaro (1511 כמאן אזלא הא דאמ' רבי יהושע בר אבא אמ' רב (Venice (1521 כמאן אזלא הא דאמר רבי יהושע בר אבא אמר רב Vilna כמאן אזלא הא דא"ר יהושע בר אבא אמר רב

Munich 95 18 גידל א' רב שמנ' פסוקי' שבתור' יחיד קור' אות' לימ' Hamburg 165 גדל אמ' רב שמונה פסוקין שבתורה יחיד קורא אותן לימא Paris 1337 גידל אמ' רב שמונה פסוקי' שבתורה יחיד קורא אותן נימא Vatican 115 גידל אמ' רב שמונה פסוקי' שבתורה יחיד קורא אותן נימא Florence II-I-9 גידל אמ' רב שמונ' פסוקי' שבתורה יחיד קורא אותם לימ' Escorial G-I-3 שמנה פסוקים שבתורה יחיד קורא אותם נימא Oxford 249 גידל אמ' רב שמונה פסוקי' שבתורה יחיד קורא אותן (Pesaro (1511 גידל אמ' רב שמונ' פסוקי' שבתור' יחיד קורא אותן לימ' (Venice (1521 גידל אמר רב שמונה פסוקי' שבתורה יחיד קורא אותן לימא Vilna גידל אמר רב שמונה פסוקים שבתורה יחיד קורא אותן לימא

Munich 95 19 דלא כר' שמעו' אפי' תימ' ר' שמעו' Hamburg 165 דלא כר' שמע' אפילו תימא ר' שמע' Paris 1337 דלא כר' שמעון אפי' תימא ר' שמעון Vatican 115 דלא כר' שמעון אפי' תימא ר' שמעון Florence II-I-9 דלא כר' שמע' אפיל' תימ' ר' שמע' Escorial G-I-3 דלא כר' שמעון אפי' תימא ר' שמעון Oxford 249 דלא כר' שמעון אפי' תימ' ר' שמעו' (Pesaro (1511 רבי יהודה היא ודלא כר' שמעון אפילו תימא רבי שמעון (Venice (1521 רבי יהודה היא ודלא כרבי שמעון אפי' תימא רבי שמעון Vilna ר"י) היא) ודלא כר"ש אפילו תימא ר"ש

Munich 95 20 הואי' ואשתני אשתני Hamburg 165 כיון דאשתני אשתני] יהושע כתב ספרו והכ' וימת Paris 1337 כיון דאשתני אשתני יהושע כתב ספרו והכתי' וימת Vatican 115 כיון דאשתני אשתני יהושע כתב ספרו והכתי' וימת Florence II-I-9 הואיל ואישתני אישתני Escorial G-I-3 הואיל ואשתני אשתני Oxford 249 הואיל ואישתני אישתני אמ' מר יהושע כתב ספרו והכתי' (Pesaro (1511 הואיל ואישתני אשתנה יהושע כתב ספרו והכתיב וימת (Venice (1521 הואיל ואישתני אשתנ' יהושע כתב ספרו והכתיב וימת Vilna הואיל ואשתנו אשתנו יהושע כתב ספרו והכתיב וימת

231

Munich 95 21 Hamburg 165 יהושע בן נון עבד ייי דאסקיה אלעזר Paris 1337 יהושע דאסקיה אלעזר Vatican 115 יהושע דאסקיה אלעזר Florence II-I-9 Escorial G-I-3 Oxford 249 יהשוע מת דאתא אלעזר וסיימיה (Pesaro (1511 יהושע בן נון עבד ה' דאסקיה אלעזר (Venice (1521 יהושע בן נון עבד ה' דאסקיה אלעזר Vilna יהושע בן נון עבד ה' דאסקיה אלעזר

Munich 95 22 Hamburg 165 והכת' ואלעזר בן אהרן מת דאסקיה פנחס וזקנים Paris 1337 והכתי' אלעזר בן אהרן מת דאסקיה פינחס Vatican 115 והכתי' אלעזר בן אהרן מת דאסקיה פינחס Florence II-I-9 Escorial G-I-3 Oxford 249 והכת' אלעזר מת דאתא פינחס וזקינים וסיימוה (Pesaro (1511 והכתיב ואלעזר בן אהרן מת דאסקיה פנחס (Venice (1521 והכתיב ואלעזר בן אהרון מת דאסקי' פנחס Vilna והכתיב ואלעזר בן אהרן מת דאסקיה פנחס

232

Appendix E: Synopsis of Menaḥot 30a (Chapter One)

233

Munich 1 וא"ר יהוש' בר אבא א' רב גידל א' רב Venice Print אמ' רבי יהוש' בר אבא אמר רב גדל אמר רב Vatican 120 א"ר יהושע בר אבא אמ' רב גידל אמ' רב Vatican 118 וא' ר' יהושו' בר אבא אמ' רב גידל אמ' רב Paris AIU H147A א'ר יהושע בר אבא אמ' רב גידל 'מ[א]() רב Vilna אמר רבי יהושע בר אבא אמר רב גידל אמר רב

Munich 2 שמנה פסוקין שבתורה יחיד קורא אותן כמאן דלא כר' Venice Print שמונ' פסוקים שבתור' יחיד קור' אותן בב"ה כמאן דלא כרבי Vatican 120 שמונה פסוקין שבתורה יחיד קורא אתם כמאן דלא כר' Vatican 118 שמונה פסוק' שבתורה יחיד קורא אותן לימ' דלא כר' Paris AIU H147A שמונה פסוקי' שבתורה יחיד קורא אותן כמאן דלא כר' Vilna שמנה פסוקים שבתורה יחיד קורא אותן בבהכ"נ כמאן דלא כר"ש

Munich 3 שמע' דתניא וימת שם משה עבד יי אפשר משה חי Venice Print שמעון דתניא וימת שם משה עבד יי' איפשר משה חי Vatican 120 שמע' דתניא וימת שם משה איפשר משה חי Vatican 118 שמעון דתניא וימת שם משה עבד יי' איפר משה חי Paris AIU H147A שמע' דתניא וימת משה שם איפשר משה חי Vilna דתניא וימת שם משה עבד יי' אפשר משה חי

Munich 4 וכתב וימת שם משה אלא ע"כ כתב משה מכאן Venice Print וכתב וימת שם משה אלא עד כאן כתב משה מיכאן Vatican 120 וכותב וימת שם משה אלא עד כאן כתב משה מיכאן Vatican 118 וכת' וימת שם משה אלא עד כאן כתב משה מכאן Paris AIU H147A וכתב וימת שם משה אלא עד כאן כתב מש(ם)[ה] מיכאן Vilna וכתב וימת שם משה אלא עד כאן כתב משה מכאן

Munich 5 ואיל' כתב יהושע דברי ר' יהוד' ואמרי לה Venice Print ואילך כתב יהושע בן נון דברי רבי יהודה ואמרי לה Vatican 120 ואילך כתב יהושע דברי ר' יהושע ואמרי לה Vatican 118 ואילך יהושוע דברי ר' יהוד' ואמרי לה Paris AIU H147A ואילך כתב יהושע דברי ר' יהוד' ואמרי לה Vilna ואילך כתב יהושע בן נון דברי רבי יהודה ואמרי לה

234

Munich 6 ר' נחמיה א"ל ר' שמע' אפשר ספר תורה חסר Venice Print רבי נחמיה אמר לו רבי שמעון אפשר ס"ת חסר Vatican 120 ר' נחמיה אמ' לו ר' שמע' איפשר ספר חסר Vatican 118 ר' נחמיה א' לו ר' שמעו' איפשר ספר חסר Paris AIU H147A ר' נחמיה א' לו ר' שמע' איפשר ספר תורה חסר Vilna רבי נחמיה אמר לו ר"ש אפשר ס"ת חסר

Munich 7 אות אחת וכתוב בו לקוח את ספר התורה הזאת Venice Print אות אחת וכתב לקוח את ספר התורה הזה ושמתם Vatican 120 אות וכת' לקוח את ספר התורה הזה ושמתם Vatican 118 אות אחת והכת' לקוח את ספר התורה הזה Paris AIU H147A אות אחת וכת' לקוח את ספר התורה הזה ושמתם Vilna אות אחת וכתיב לקוח את ספר התורה הזה ושמתם

Munich 8 אלא ע"כ הק"ב או' ומשה כותב Venice Print אותו וג' אלא עד כאן הק"בה אומ' ומשה כותב Vatican 120 אתו אל' עד כאן הקב"ה אומ' ומשה כותב Vatican 118 אלא עד כאן הקב"ה או' ומשה או' וכותב Paris AIU H147A אות?ו? אלא עד כאן הק' או' ומשה כותב Vilna אותו וגו' אלא עד כאן הקב"ה אומר ומשה כותב

Munich 9 מכאן ואילך הק"ב או' ומשה כותב בדמע כמה שנ' Venice Print ואומר מיכאן ואילך הקב"ה אומר משה כותב בדמע כמה שנ' Vatican 120 מיכאן ואילך הקב"ה אומ' ומשה בדמע כמה שנ' Vatican 118 מכאן ואילך הקב"ה אומר ומשה כותב בדמע כמה שנ' Paris AIU H147A מיכ' ואילך הק' או' ומשה כותב בדמע כמה שנ' Vilna ואומר מכאן ואילך הקב"ה אומר ומשה כותב בדמע כמה שנאמר

Munich 10 ויאמר להם ברוך מפיו יקרא אלי Venice Print להלן ויאמר להם ברוך מפיו יקר' אלי את הו? ברי' Vatican 120 להלן ויאמר להן ברוך מפיו יקרא אלי את הדברים Vatican 118 להלן ויאמר להן ברוך מפיו יקרא אלי כל הדברים Paris AIU H147A להלן ויאמר להן ברוך מפיו יקום אלי וג' Vilna להלן ויאמר להם ברוך מפיו יקרא אלי את כל הדברים

235

Munich 11 ואני [...] כותב Venice Print האלה ואנ' אכתב Vatican 120 האלה ואני כותב Vatican 118 האלה ואני כותב כל הדברים האלה ואני (על) כותב Paris AIU H147A Vilna האלה ואני כותב

Munich 12 בספר ובדיו לימ' דלא כר' שמע' אפי' תימא ר' Venice Print על הספר ובדיו לימא דלא כרבי שמעון אפי' תימא רבי Vatican 120 על הספר ובדיו לימ' דלא כר' שמע' אפילו תימ' ר' Vatican 118 על הספר בדיו לימא דלא כר' שמעון אפילו תימ' ר' Paris AIU H147A בדיו לימ' דלא כר' שמע' אפילו תימ' ר' Vilna על הספר בדיו לימא דלא כר"ש אפי' תימא ר"ש

Munich 13 שמע' הואיל ואשתני אשתני Venice Print שמעון הואיל ואישתני אישתני Vatican 120 שמע' הואיל ואישתני אישתני Vatican 118 שמע' הואיל ואישתני Paris AIU H147A שמע' הואיל ואישתני אישתני Vilna הואיל ואישתני אישתני

236

Appendix F: Synopsis of Yalkut Shimoni to Deuteronomy 34:5, Sifre 357:5, and Vilna Menaḥot 30a (Chapter One)

237

Yalkut Shimoni 1 וימת שם משה איפשר שמת משה Sifre וימת שם משה איפשר שמת משה Vilna Menahot דתניא וימת שם משה עבד יי' אפשר משה חי

Yalkut Shimoni 2 וכתב וימת שם משה אלא עד כאן כתב משה מכאן Sifre וכותב וימת שם משה אלא עד כאן כתב משה מיכן Vilna Menahot וכתב וימת שם משה אלא עד כאן כתב משה מכאן

Yalkut Shimoni 3 ואילך כתב יהושע דברי ר' יהודה ואיתימא Sifre ואילך כתב יהושע Vilna Menahot ואילך כתב יהושע בן נון דברי רבי יהודה ואמרי לה

Yalkut Shimoni 4 רבי נחמיה ואיתימא רבי שמעון רבי מאיר אומר הרי] הוא Sifre רבי מאיר אומר הרי הוא Vilna Menahot רבי נחמיה

Yalkut Shimoni 5 אומר] ויכתוב משה את התורה הזאת ויתנה Sifre אומר ויכתוב משה את התורה הזאת Vilna Menahot אמר לו ר"ש

Yalkut Shimoni 6 אפשר שנתן משה את התורה הזאת כשהיא חסרה אפילו אות Sifre איפשר שנתן משה את התורה כשהיא חסירה אפילו אות Vilna Menahot אפשר ס"ת חסר אות

Yalkut Shimoni 7 אחת Sifre אחת Vilna Menahot אחת וכתיב לקוח את ספר התורה הזה ושמתם אותו וגו'

Yalkut Shimoni 8 אלא מלמד שהיה משה כותב Sifre אלא מלמד שהיה משה כותב מה Vilna Menahot אלא עד כאן הקב"ה אומר ומשה כותב

238

Yalkut Shimoni 9 Sifre שאמר לו הקדוש ברוך הוא כתוב Vilna Menahot ואומר מכאן ואילך הקב"ה

Yalkut Shimoni 10 בדמע מה שאמר לו הקב"ה כענין שנאמר Sifre כענין שנאמר Vilna Menahot אומר ומשה כותב בדמע כמה שנאמר

Yalkut Shimoni 11 ויאמר אליהם ברוך מפיו יקרא אלי את הדברים Sifre ויאמר אליהם ברוך מפיו יקרא אלי Vilna Menahot להלן ויאמר להם ברוך מפיו יקרא אלי את כל הדברים

Yalkut Shimoni 12 ואני כותב וגו' Sifre Vilna Menahot האלה ואני כותב על הספר בדיו

239

Appendix G: Synopsis of Baba Kamma 32b (Chapter Two)

240

Escorial G-I-3 1 תנו רבנן הנכנס לחנותו שלנגר שלא ברשות ונתזא בקעת Florence II-I-8 תנן רבנן הנכנס לחנותו של נגר שלא ברשו' ונ(טעה)[ת בקעת Hamburg 165 תנו רבנן הנכנס לחנותו של נגר שלא ברשות ונתזה בקעת Munich 95 תנו רבנן הנכנס לחנותו של נגר שלא] ברשות] ונתזה בקעת Vatican 116 תנו רבנן הנכנס לחנותו של נגר שלא ברשות ונתזה בקעת Soncino Print תנו רבנן הנכנס לחנותו של <...> Vilna ת"ר הנכנס לחנותו של נגר שלא ברשות ונתזה בקעת

Escorial G-I-3 2 וטיפחה לו על פניו ומת פטור ואם נכנס ברשות Florence II-I-8 וטפחה ונפלה לו על פניו פטור ואם נכנס ברשו' Hamburg 165 וטפחה לו על פניו ומת פטור ואם נכנס ברשות Munich 95 וטפחה לו על פניו ומת פטור ואם נכנס ברשותו Vatican 116 וטפחה לו על פניו ומת פטור ואם נכנס ברשו' Soncino Print על פניו ומת פטו' ואם נכנס בר' Vilna וטפחה על פניו ומת פטור ואם נכנס ברשות

Escorial G-I-3 3 חייב מאי חייב אמ' ר' יוסי בר' חנינא חייב בארבעה Florence II-I-8 חייב מאי חייב אמ' ר' יוסי בר' חנינא חייב בארב' Hamburg 165 חייב מאי] חייב] א'ר יוסי בר' חנינה חייב בארבעה Munich 95 חייב מאי חייב א"ר יוסי ב"ר חנינא חייב בארבעה Vatican 116 חייב מאי חייב א"ר יוסי בר' חנינא חייב בארבע Soncino Print חייב מאי חייב א"ר יוסי בר חנינ' חייב בד' Vilna חייב מאי חייב א"ר יוסי בר חנינא חייב בד'

Escorial G-I-3 4 דברים ופטור מגלות לפי שאינו דומה ליער יער Florence II-I-8 דברי' ופטור מגלות לפי שאין דומה ליער יער Hamburg 165 דברים ופטור מגלות מאי טע' לפי שאינו דומה ליער יער Munich 95 דברים ופטור מגלות לפי שאין דומה ליער יער Vatican 116 דברים ופטור מגלות לפי שאינו דומה ליער יער Soncino Print דברי' ...> ר<.. Vilna דברים ופטור מגלות לפי שאין דומה ליער יער

Escorial G-I-3 5 זה לרשותו נכנס וזה לרשותו נכנס [הכא] זה לרשות חבירו Florence II-I-8 זה לרשותו נכנס וזה לרשות' נכנס Hamburg 165 זה לרשותו נכנס וזה לרשותו נכנס אבל זה לרשות חברו Munich 95 זה לרשותו נכנס וזה לרשותו נכנס זה לרשות חבירו Vatican 116 זה לרשותו נכנס וזה לרשותו נכנס וזה לרשות חבירו Soncino Print זה לרשותו נכנס וזה לרשו' נכנס זה לרש' חבירו Vilna זה לרשותו נכנס וזה לרשותו נכנס זה לרשות חבירו

241

Escorial G-I-3 6 נכנס אמ' רבא קל וחומר ומה יער שזה לדעתו נכנס Florence II-I-8 אמ' רבה קל וחומר ומה יער שזה לדעתו נכנס Hamburg 165 נכנס אמ' רבא קל וחומר מה יער שזה לדעתו נכנס Munich 95 נכנס אמ' רבא קל וחומר ומה יער זה לדעתו נכנס Vatican 116 נכנס אמ' רבא קל וחומר ומה יער שזה לדעתו נכנס Soncino Print נכנס א' רב' ק"ו ומה יער זה לדעתו נכנס Vilna נכנס אמר רבא ק"ו ומה יער זה לדעתו נכנס

Escorial G-I-3 7 וזה לדעתו נכנס נעשה כמי שנכנס לדעת חבירו וגולה זה Florence II-I-8 וזה לדעתו נכנס נעשה כמי שנכנס לדעת חבירו וגולה זה Hamburg 165 וזה לדעתו נכנס נעשה כמי שנכנס לדעת חברו וגולה זה Munich 95 וזה לדעתו נכנס נעשה כמי שנכנס לדעת חבירו וגולה זה Vatican 116 וזה לדעתו נכנס נעשה כמי שנכנס לדעת חבירו וגולה זה Soncino Print וזה לדעתו נכנס נעשה כמי שנכנ' לדעת חבירו וגולה זה Vilna וזה לדעתו נכנס נעשה כמי שנכנס לדעת חבירו וגולה זה

Escorial G-I-3 8 שלדעת חביר[ו] נכנס לא כל שכן אלא אמ' רבא Florence II-I-8 שלדעת חבירו נכנס לא כל שכן אלא אמ' רבה Hamburg 165 שלדעת חברו נכנס לא כל שכן אלא אמ' רבא Munich 95 שנכנס לדעת חבירו לא כל שכן אלא אמ' רבא Vatican 116 של דעת נכנס לא כל שכן אלא אמ' רבא Soncino Print שלדע' חבירו נכנס לא כ"ש אלא א' רבא Vilna שלדעת חבירו נכנס לא כל שכן אלא אמר רבא

Escorial G-I-3 9 פטור מגלות דלא סגי Florence II-I-8 מאי פטור מגלות דקאמ' ר' יוסי בר' חנינ' דלא סגי Hamburg 165 מאי פטור מגלות דלא סגי Munich 95 מאי פטור מגלות דלא סגי Vatican 116 מאי פטור מגלות ולא סגיא Soncino Print מאי פטו' מגלות דלא סגי Vilna מאי פטור מגלות דלא סגי

Escorial G-I-3 10 בגלות והיינו טעמ' דר' יוסי בר' חנינא דהוה Florence II-I-8 ליה בגלות והיינו טעמ' דר' יוסי בר' חנינא משו' דהוה Hamburg 165 ליה בגלות משום דהוה Munich 95 ליה בגלות היינו טעמ' דר' יוסי ב"ר חנינא משום דהוה Vatican 116 ליה בגלות היינו טעמ' דר' יוסי בר חנינא משום דהוה Soncino Print לי' בגלו' והיינו טע' דר' יוסי בר' חנינ' משו' דהוה Vilna ליה בגלות והיינו טעמא דרבי יוסי בר חנינא משום דהוי

242

Escorial G-I-3 11 ליה שוגג קרוב למזיד מתיב רבא הוסיף לו רצועה אחת Florence II-I-8 ליה שוגג קרוב למזיד מתיב רבה הוסיף לו רצועה Hamburg 165 ליה שוגג קרוב למזיד מתיב רבא הוסיף לו רצועה אחת Munich 95 ליה שוגג הקרוב למזיד מתיב רבה הוסיף לו רצועה Vatican 116 ליה שוגג קרוב למזיד מתיב רבא הוסיף לו רצועה אחת Soncino Print ליה שוגג קרוב למזיד מתיב רבא הוסיף לו רצועה אחת Vilna ליה שוגג קרוב למזיד מתיב רבא הוסיף לו רצועה אחת

Escorial G-I-3 12 ומת הרי זה גולה על ידו והא הכא דשוגג קרוב Florence II-I-8 ומת הרי זה גולה על ידו והא הכא דשוגג קרוב Hamburg 165 ומת הרי זה גולה על ידו והא הכא שוגג קרוב Munich 95 ומת הרי זה גולה על ידו והא הכא דשוגג קרוב Vatican 116 ומת הרי זה גולה על ידו והא הכא דשוגג קרוב Soncino Print ומת הרי זה גולה על ידו והא הכ' דשוגג קרוב Vilna ומת הרי זה גולה על ידו והא הכא דשוגג קרוב

Escorial G-I-3 13 למזיד הוא דאיבעי ליה אסוקיה אדעתיה דמיתי אינשי בחדא רצועה Florence II-I-8 למזיד הוא דאיבעי ליה לאסוקי אדעתיה דמייתי איניש בחדא רצועה Hamburg 165 למזיד הוא דאיבעי ליה אסוקי אדעתיה דמיתי אינשי בחדא רצועה Munich 95 למזיד הוא דאיבעי ליה אסוקי דעתיה דמיתי אינשי בחדא רצועה Vatican 116 למזיד [ד]איבעי(וליה לאסוקי אדעתיה ד<..>ת איניש בחדא רצועה Soncino Print למזיד הוא דאיבעי אסוקי אדעתיה דמייתי אינשי בחדא רצועה Vilna למזיד הוא דאיבעי אסוקי אדעתיה דמייתי אינשי בחדא רצועה

Escorial G-I-3 14 וקתני הרי זה גולה אמ' רב שימי מנהרדעא דטעי במניינא Florence II-I-8 וקתני הרי זה גולה אמ' רב שימי מנהרדע' דטעא במינינא Hamburg 165 וקתני הרי זה גולה אמ' רב שימי מנהרדעא דטעי במנינא Munich 95 וקתני הרי זה גולה אמ' רב שימי מנהרדעא [דטעי] במינינא Vatican 116 וקתני הרי זה גולה אמ' רב שימי מנהרדעא דטעה במוניינא Soncino Print וקתני הרי זה גולה אמר רב שימי מנהרדעא דטעי במנינא Vilna וקתני הרי זה גולה אמר רב שימי מנהרדעא דטעי במנינא

Escorial G-I-3 15 טפח ליה רבא בסנדליה אטו איהו קא מני Florence II-I-8 טפח ליה רבא בסנדלי' אטו הוא מני Hamburg 165 טפח ליה רבא בסנדליה אטו הוא מני Munich 95 טפח ליה רבא בסנדליה אטו הוא מאני Vatican 116 טפח ליה [רבא] בסנדליה אטו הוא מני Soncino Print טפח לי' רבא בסנדליה א"ל אטו הוא מני Vilna טפח ליה רבא בסנדליה אמר ליה אטו הוא מני

243

Escorial G-I-3 16 והא תני גדול שבדיינין קורא והשני מונה ושלישי אומ' הכהו Florence II-I-8 והתניא גדול שבדיינין קורא וה?ש?יני מונה והשלישי אומ' הכהו Hamburg 165 והתניא גדול שבדיינין קורא והשני מונה והשלישי אומ' הכהו Munich 95 והתניא גדול שבדיינין קורא והשני מונה והשלישי או' הכהו Vatican 116 [והתניא] גד[ו]ל שבדיינין קורא והשיני מונה והשלישי אומ' הכהו Soncino Print והתני גדו' שבדיינין קורא והשני מונה והשלישי או' הכהו Vilna והתניא גדול שבדיינין קורא והשני מונה והשלישי אומר הכהו

Escorial G-I-3 17 [אלא] דטעי דיינא גופיה Florence II-I-8 אלא אמ' רב שימי מנהרדע' [ד]טעה(ו) דיינא גופ[י]ה Hamburg 165 אמ' רבא דטעה דיינא גופיה Munich 95 דטעא דיינא גופיה Vatican 116 אלא אמ' רב שימי מנהרדעא דטעה דיינא גופיה דודאי שוגג Soncino Print אלא א' רב שימ מנהרדע' דטע' דיינא גופיה Vilna אלא אמר רב שימי מנהרדעא דטעה דיינא גופיה

Escorial G-I-3 18 Florence II-I-8 Hamburg 165 Munich 95 Vatican 116 גמור הוא Soncino Print Vilna

244

Appendix H: Synopsis of Niddah 64b (Chapter Two)

245

Munich 95 1 איתמ' בעל ולא מצ' דם וחזר ובעל ומצא דם ר' Vatican 111 איתמר בעל ולא מצא דם וחזר ובעל ומצא דם ר' Soncino (1489 איתמ' בעל ולא מצא דם וחזר ובעל ומצא דם ר' Vilna איתמר בעל ולא מצא דם וחזר ובעל ומצא דם רבי

Munich 95 2 חנינ' א' טמא Vatican 111 חנינ' או' טמאה Soncino (1489 חנינא אמ' טמאה ור' יוסי אומר טהורה ר' חנינא אמ' Vilna חנינא אמר טמאה ורבי אסי אמר טהורה ר' חנינא אמר

Munich 95 3 אם אית דהוי לה דם בתולי' מעיקר' הוה אתי Vatican 111 אם איתה דהוי דם בתול' מעיקרא הוה אתי Soncino (1489 טמאה דאם איתה דהוה דם בתולים מעיקרא הוה אתי Vilna טמאה דאם איתא דהוה דם בתולים מעיקרא הוי אתי

Munich 95 4 ר' אסי א' טהור' דילמ' אתרמו ליה כדשמו' דא' שמו' Vatican 111 ר' אסי אמ' טהורה דיל' איתרמי ליה כדשמו' דאמ' שמו' Soncino (1489 ור' יוסי אומ' טהורה דילמא אתרמי ליה כדשמואל דא' שמואל Vilna ורבי אסי אמר טהורה דילמא אתרמי ליה כדשמואל דאמר שמואל

Munich 95 5 יכולני לבעול כמ' בתולו' בלא דם ואידך Vatican 111 דאמ' שמו' יכול אני לבעול כמה בתולו' בלא דם ואידך Soncino (1489 יכולני לבעול כמה בעילות בלא דם ואידך Vilna יכולני לבעול כמה בעילות בלא דם ואידך

Munich 95 6 שני שמו' דרב גוברי' Vatican 111 שני שמו' דרב גובריה Soncino (1489 שאני שמואל דרב גובריה Vilna שאני שמואל דרב גובריה

246

Appendix I: Synopsis of Ketubot 11a (Chapter Three)

247

Munich 95 1 אמ' רב הונא גר קטן מטבילין אותו על דעת Vatican 112 אמ' רב הונא גר קטן מטבילי' אותו על דעת (דא) Vatican 130 אמ' רב הונא גר קטן מטבילין אותו על דעת Vatican 487 א' רב הונא גר קטן מטבילין אותו על דעת Vilna אמר רב הונא גר קטן מטבילין אותו על דעת

Munich 95 2 ב"ד מאי קמ"ל דזכות הוא לו וזכין לו לאדם Vatican 112 בית] דין] מאי קמ"ל דזכות הוא לו ד?זכין? לאדם Vatican 130 בית דין מאי קמ"ל דזכות הוא לו וזכין לאדם Vatican 487 בית דין מאי קמ"ל דזכות הוא לו וזכין לאדם Vilna בית דין מאי קמ"ל דזכות הוא לו וזכין לאדם

Munich 95 3 שלא בפניו תנינא שזכין לו לאדם שלא בפניו ואין חבין Vatican 112 שלא בפניו תניינא זכין] לאדם שלא בפניו ואי' חבין Vatican 130 שלא בפניו תנינא זכין לאד' שלא בפניו ואין חבין Vatican 487 שלא בפני[ו] תנינא זכין לאדם שלא בפניו ואין חבין Vilna שלא בפניו תנינא זכין לאדם שלא בפניו ואין חבין

Munich 95 4 לו לאדם אלא בפניו מהו דתימ' גוי בהפקירא ניחא Vatican 112 לאדם שלא בפניו] מהו דתימא גוי בהיפקיר' ניח' Vatican 130 לאדם שלא בפניו מהו דתימא גוי בהיפקירא ניחא Vatican 487 לאדם אלא בפניו מהו דתימא גוי בהיפקרא ניחא Vilna לאדם שלא בפניו מהו דתימא עובד כוכבים בהפקירא ניחא

Munich 95 5 ליה דהא קיימ' לן עבד בהפקירא ניח' Vatican 112 ליה קמ"ל והא קיימא לן דעבד ודאי בהיפקיר' ניח' Vatican 130 ליה דהא]? קיימ' לן דודאי גוי בהיפקירא ניחא Vatican 487 ליה דהא קיימא לן דודאי עבד בהיפקרא ניחא Vilna ליה דהא קיימא לן דעבד ודאי בהפקירא ניחא

Munich 95 6 ליה קמ"ל הני מילי גדול דטעים טעמ' דאיסורא אבל Vatican 112 וטע' ה"מ] גדול דטעים] טעמא דאיסור' אבל Vatican 130 ליה]? קמ"ל הני מילי גדול דטעים טעמא דאיסורא אבל Vatican 487 ליה הני מילי גדול דטעים טעמא דאיסור' Vilna ליה קמ"ל דהני מילי גדול דטעם טעם דאיסורא אבל

Munich 95 7 קטן זכות הוא לו Vatican 112 קטן זכות הוא לו Vatican 130 קט' זכות הוא לו Vatican 487 זכות היא לו Vilna קטן זכות הוא לו

248

Appendix J: Synopsis of Gittin 12b-13a (Chapter Three)

249

Munich 95 1 תני' א"ר אלעזר אמרנו לו לר' מאיר והלא זכו' Oxford Opp. 38 תני' א"ר אלע' אמרנו לו למא והלא זכו' St. Petersburg 187 תניא א"ר אלעזר אמרנו לו למאיר והלא זכות Vatican 127 תניא אמ' ר' אלע' אמרו לו למאיר והלא זכות Vatican 130 תניא א'ר אלעזר אמרנו לו למאיר והלא זכות Vatican 140 תניא א"ר אלעזר אמרנו לו למאי' והלא זכות Venice Print תניא אמר רבי אלעזר אמרנו לו למאיר והלא זכות Vilna תניא א"ר אלעזר אמרנו לו למאיר והלא זכות

Munich 95 2 הוא לעבד שיוצ' מתחת רבו לחירו' א' לנו חוב Oxford Opp. 38 הוא לעבד שיצא מתחת רבו לחירות אמ' לנו חוב St. Petersburg 187 הוא לעבד <...> מתחת רבו לחירות אמ' להן חוב Vatican 127 הוא לעבד שיוצא מתחת רבו לחירות אמ' לנו חוב Vatican 130 הוא לעבד(ו) שיוצא מתחת יד רבו לחירות אמ' לנו חוב Vatican 140 הוא לעבד שיצא מתחת מתחת רבו לחירות א"ל חוב Venice Print הוא לעבד שיוצ' מתח' ידי רבו לחירות אמ' לנו חוב Vilna הוא לעבד שיוצא מתחת ידי רבו לחירות אמר לנו חוב

Munich 95 3 הו' לו שאם היה עבד כהן פוסלו מן התרומ' אמרנו Oxford Opp. 38 הוא לו שאם היה עבד כהן פוסלו מן התרומה אמרנו St. Petersburg 187 הוא לו שאם היה עב<..> <...> פוסלו מן התרומה אמרנו Vatican 127 המו לא שאם היה עבד כהן פוסלו מן התרומה אמרנו Vatican 130 הוא לו שאם היה עבד [כהן] פוסלו מן התרומה אמרנו Vatican 140 הוא לו שאם היה עבד כהן פוסלו מן התרומה אמרנו Venice Print הוא לו שאם היה עבד כהן פוסלו מן התרומה אמרנו Vilna הוא לו שאם היה עבד כהן פוסלו מן התרומה אמרנו

Munich 95 4 והלא אם רצ' שלא לזונו Oxford Opp. 38 לו והלא מה אם ירצה שלא זונו St. Petersburg 187 לו והלא ומה שאם ירצה שלא לזונו Vatican 127 לא ר' והלא אם רצה שלא (לקו) [לזונו] Vatican 130 לו והלא אם רצה שלא לזונו Vatican 140 לו אם ירצה שלא לזונו Venice Print לו והלא מה אם ירצה שלא לזונו Vilna לו והלא מה אם ירצה שלא לזונו

250

Munich 95 5 ושלא לפרנסו רשאי א' לנו ומה אלו עבד כהן שברח Oxford Opp. 38 ושלא לפרנסו רשאי אמ' לנו ומה [אילו] עבד בהן שברח St. Petersburg 187 לא<..> לפרנסו רשאי אמ' לו ומה אילו עבד כהן שברח Vatican 127 שלא לפרנסו רשאי אמ' לנו ומה עבד כהן שברח Vatican 130 ושלא לפרנסו רשאי אמר לנו ומה אילו עב' כהן שברח Vatican 140 ולפרנסו רשאי אמ' לנו ומה אילו עבד כהן שברח Venice Print ושלא ולפרנסו רשאי אמר לנו ומה אילו עבד כהן שברח Vilna ושלא לפרנסו רשאי אמר לנו ומה אילו עבד כהן שברח

Munich 95 6 ואש' כהן שמרד' על בעל' הלא אוכלין בתרומה וזה Oxford Opp. 38 ואשת כהן שמרדה על בעלה הלא אוכלין בתרומה וזה St. Petersburg 187 ואשת כהן שמרדה על בעלה הלא אוכלין בתרומה וזה Vatican 127 ואשת כהן שמרדה על בעלה הלא אוכליו בתרומה וזה Vatican 130 ואשת כהן שמרדה הלא אוכלין בתרומה וזה Vatican 140 ואשת כהן שמרדה על בעלה הלא אוכלין בתרומה (אי) וזה Venice Print ואשת כהן שמרדה על בעלה הלא אוכלי' בתרומה וזה Vilna ואשת כהן שמרדה על בעלה הלא אוכלין בתרומה וזה

Munich 95 7 אינו אוכל אש' חוב הו' לה שכן פוסל' Oxford Opp. 38 אינו אוכל אבל אשה חוב הוא לה שכן פיסלה St. Petersburg 187 אינו אוכל אבל <...> חוב הוא לה שכן פוסלה Vatican 127 אינו אוכל אבל אשה חוב (לה) המו לה שכן פסלה Vatican 130 אינו אוכל אבל אשה חוב הוא לה שכן פסלה Vatican 140 אינו וכל[א] אבל אשה חוב הוא לה שכן פוסלה Venice Print אינו אוכל אבל אשה חוב הוא לה שכן פסלה Vilna אינו אוכל אבל אשה חוב הוא לה שכן פסלה

Munich 95 8 מן התרומ' ומפסיד' מן המזונו' מאי קאמרו ליה ומאי Oxford Opp. 38 מן התרומה ומפסידה מן] ה]מזונו מאי קאמרן ליה ומאי St. Petersburg 187 מן התרומה ומפסידה מן המזונות <...> קאמרו ליה ומאי Vatican 127 מן התרומה ומפסידה מן המזונות מאי קאמרי מאי Vatican 130 מן (הכהונה) התרומה ומפסי' מן המזונות מאי קאמרו ליה ומאי Vatican 140 מן התרומ' ומפסידה מן המזונות מאי קאמ' להו ומאי Venice Print מן התרומה ומפסיד' מן המזונו' מאי קאמרו לי' ומאי Vilna מן התרומה ומפסידה מן המזונות מאי קאמרו ליה ומאי

251

Munich 95 9 קמהדר להו הכי קא' להו השבתוני על Oxford Opp. 38 קמהדר ליה הכי דאמ' להו השבתני על St. Petersburg 187 קמהדר להו הכי קאמ' להו השבתוני על Vatican 127 קמהדר להו הכי קאמ' להו השיבתוני על Vatican 130 קא מהדר להו הכי קאמ' להו השבתוני על Vatican 140 קמהדרו ליה הכי קאמ' להו ר' מאיר השבתוני על Venice Print קא מהדר להו הכי קאמר להו הישבתוני על Vilna קא מהדר להו ה"ק להו השבתוני על

Munich 95 10 המזונו' מה תשיבו' על התרומ' וכי תימרו אי בעי זריק Oxford Opp. 38 המזונו מה תשיביני על התרומה וכי ת?מרו? איבעי זריק St. Petersburg 187 המזונות מה תשיבוני על התרומה וכי תימרו אי בעי זריק Vatican 127 המזונות מה תשיבוני על התרומה וכי תימ' דאיבעי זרק Vatican 130 המזונות מה תשיבוני על התרומה וכי תימ' איבעי זריק Vatican 140 המזונות מה תשיבוני על התרומה וכי תמ<..> איבעי זריק Venice Print המזונות מה תשיבוני על התרומה וכי תימרו איבעי זריק Vilna המזונות מה תשיבוני על התרומה וכי תימרו אי בעי זריק

Munich 95 11 ליה גיט' ופסיל ליה שביק ליה ועריק Oxford Opp. 38 ליה גיטא ופוסל שביק ליה ועריק St. Petersburg 187 ליה <...> ופסיל ליה שביק ליה וערק Vatican 127 ל' קלקלה) גינמו) [גיטא] לפסילה לה שביק ליה וערקא Vatican 130 ל' גיטא ופסיל ל' שביק לי' ועריק Vatican 140 ליה גיטא ופסיל ליה שביק ליה ועריק ליה Venice Print ליה גיטא ופסיל ליה שביק ליה ועריק Vilna ליה גיטא ופסיל ליה שביק ליה ועריק

Munich 95 12 ואזיל לעלמ' ומה אלו עבד כהן שברח ו<..>ש' כהן Oxford Opp. 38 ואזיל לעלמ' ומה עבד כהן שברח ואשת כהן St. Petersburg 187 ואזל לעלמא ומה אילו עבד כהן שברח ואשת כהן Vatican 127 ואזיל לעלמא ומה אילו עבד כהן שברח ואשת כהן Vatican 130 ואזיל לעלמא ומה אילו עבד כהן שברח ואשת כהן Vatican 140 ואזיל ליה לעלמ' ומה עבד כהן שברח ואשת כהן Venice Print ואזיל לעלמא ומה אילו עבד כהן שברח ואשת כהן Vilna ואזיל לעלמא ומה אילו עבד כהן שברח ואשת כהן

252

Munich 95 13 שמרד' על בעל' הלא אוכלין בתרומ' וזה אינו Oxford Opp. 38 שמרדה על בעלה הלא אוכלין בתרומה וזה אינו St. Petersburg 187 שמרדה על בעלה והלא אוכלין בתרומה והוא אינו Vatican 127 שמרד' על בעלה הלא אוכליו בתרומה וזה אינו Vatican 130 שמרדה הלא אוכל' בתרומה וזה אינו Vatican 140 שמרדה על בעלה והלא אוכלין בתרומה וזה אינו (אלא) Venice Print שמרדה על בעלה הלא אוכלין בתלומה ו וזה אינו Vilna שמרדה על בעלה הלא אוכלים בתרומה וזה אינו

Munich 95 14 אוכל אבל אש' חוב הו' לה שכן פוסל' מן Oxford Opp. 38 אוכל St. Petersburg 187 אוכל Vatican 127 אוכל אבל) תרומ' אשה חוב היא לה שכן פסולה מן Vatican 130 אוכל אבל אשה חוב הוא לה שכן פסלה מן Vatican 140 אוכל Venice Print אוכל Vilna אוכל

Munich 95 15 התרומ' שפיר קא' להו Oxford Opp. 38 שפיר דאמ' להו St. Petersburg 187 שפיר קאמ' להו Vatican 127 התרומה למפסידה המזונות) שפיר קאמ' להו Vatican 130 התרומה ומפסידה מן ה מן המזונות שפיר קאמ' להו Vatican 140 שפיר קאמ' להו ר' Venice Print שפיר קאמ' להו Vilna שפיר קאמר להו

Munich 95 16 א' רבא היינו דקמהדרין ליה במתני' מפני שהו' Oxford Opp. 38 אמ' רב היינו דקא מהדרין ליה במתניתי' מפני שהוא St. Petersburg 187 אמ' רבא היינו דקא מהדרין ליה <...> מפני שהוא Vatican 127 אמ' רבא דהיינו דקא מהדריו לי' במתני' מפני שהוא Vatican 130 רבא(ו) היינו דקא מהדרי(ן) ל' במתניתין מפני שהוא Vatican 140 מאיר אמ' רבא היינו דקא מהדרין ליה במתני' מפני שהוא Venice Print אמ' רבא היינו דקא מהדרי ליה במתניתין מפני שהוא Vilna אמר רבא היינו דקא מהדרי ליה במתני' מפני שהוא

253

Munich 95 17 קניינו דאי בעי שקיל זוזי מישר' ופסיל ליה כל Oxford Opp. 38 קיניינו דא' באי' שקיל ארב' זוזי מישר' ופסיל ליה כל St. Petersburg 187 קניינו דאי בעי שקיל ארבע זוזי מישראל ופסיל ליה<..> Vatican 127 קניינו דאי בעי שקיל ארבע זוזי מישר' ופסיל ליה כל Vatican 130 כקיניינו דאי בעי שקיל ארבעה זוזי מישר' ופסיל ל' כל Vatican 140 קיניינו דאיבעי שקיל ארבע זוזי מישר' ופסיל ליה כל Venice Print קניינו דאי בעי שקיל ארבעה זוזי מישראל ופסיל ליה כל Vilna קנינו דאי בעי שקיל ארבעה זוזי מישראל ופסיל ליה כל

Munich 95 18 היכ' דאיתי' ור' מאיר תינח עבד כהן עבד ישר' Oxford Opp. 38 היכ' דאיתי ור' מאיר תינח עבד כהן עבד ישר' St. Petersburg 187 היכא דאיתיה ולר' מאיר תינח עבד כהן שברח ישראל Vatican 127 היכא דאיתיה ור' מאיר התינח עבד כהן עבד ישר' Vatican 130 היכא דאיתיה תינח עבד כהן עבד ישר' Vatican 140 היכא דאיתי' ור' מאיר תינח עבד כהן ועבד ישר' Venice Print היכא דאיתיה ולרבי מאיר תינח עבד כהן עבד ישראל Vilna היכא דאיתיה ולרבי מאיר תינח עבד כהן עבד ישראל

Munich 95 19 מאי איכ' למימ' א"ר שמו' בר רב Oxford Opp. 38 מאי איכא למימ' אמ' ר' שמע' בר רב St. Petersburg 187 מא<.. <... למימר א"ר שמואל בר רב Vatican 127 (מיד) [מאי] איכא למימ' טמא ר' שמו' בר' Vatican 130 מאי איכא למימ' א'ר שמ(ע)ו' בר רב Vatican 140 מאי איכא למימ' אמ' ר' שמואל בר רב Venice Print מאי איכא למימר אמ' רבי שמואל בר רב Vilna מאי איכא למימר אמר רבי שמואל בר רב

Munich 95 20 יצח' מפני שמפסידו משפח' כנעני' אדרב' הרי Oxford Opp. 38 יצחק מפני שמפסידן משפחת כנענית אדרבה הרי St. Petersburg 187 יצחק מפני שמפסידו משפחה ת<..> אדרבה הוא Vatican 127 יצחק מפני שמפסידו משיפחה כנענית אדרבה הרי Vatican 130 יצח' מפני שמפסידו בשפחה כנענית אדרבה הרי Vatican 140 יצחק מפני שמפסידו משפחת כנענית א' רבה הרי הוא Venice Print יצחק מפני שמפסידו משפחה כ כנענית אדרב' הרי הו' Vilna יצחק מפני שמפסידו משפחה כנענית אדרבה הרי הוא

254

Munich 95 21 מתירו בבת חורין עבד' בהפקיר' ניח' ליה זילא Oxford Opp. 38 מתירו בבת חורין עבדא בהפקיר ניחא ליה זילא St. Petersburg 187 מתירו בבת חורין עבדא בהפקרא ניחא ל<...> Vatican 127 מתירו בבת חורין עבדא בהפקירה ניחי ליה זילא Vatican 130 מתירו בבת חורין בבת) חורין) עבדא כהיפקירא ניחא ליה זילא Vatican 140 מתירו בבת תורין עבדא בהפקירא ניח' ליה זילא Venice Print מתירו בבת חורי' עבדא בהפקיר' ניחא ליה זילא Vilna מתירו בבת חורין עבדא בהפקירא ניחא ליה זילא

Munich 95 22 ליה שכיח' ליה ופריע' ליה Oxford Opp. 38 ליה שכיח ליה ופריצ' ליה St. Petersburg 187 שכיחא ליה פריצא ליה Vatican 127 שכיח' ליה ופריצא ליה Vatican 130 ל' שכיח' ל' פריצא(ו) Vatican 140 ליה ושכיח ליה ופריצא ליה Venice Print ליה שכיח' ליה פריצא להי Vilna ליה שכיחא ליה פריצה ליה

255

Appendix K: Synopsis of Baba Metzia 84a (Chapter Four)

256

Escorial G-I-3 1 כי הוו מקלעי ר' ישמעאל בר' ור' אלעז' Florence II-I-8 כי הוו מיקלעי ר' ישמע' בר' יוסי ור' אלעז' Hamburg 165 כי הוו מיקלעי ר' ישמעאל בר' יוסי ור' אלעזר Munich 95 כי הוו מיקלעי ר' ישמע' ב"ר יוסי ור' אלעז' Soncino Print כי הוו מקלעי ר' ישמעאל בר' יוסי ור' אלעזר Vatican 115 א(..) כי הוו מקלעי ר' ישמע' בר' יוסי ור' אלעזר Vatican 116-117 כי הוו מיקלעי ר' ישמעאל בר' יוסי ור' אלעזר Vilna כי הוו מקלעי רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי ורבי אלעזר

Escorial G-I-3 2 בר' שמעון ל(ה)הדדי הוו עיילי פדנא דתורא Florence II-I-8 בר' שמע' גבי הדדי חלפא ביניהו בקרא דתורא Hamburg 165 בר' שמעון לגבי הדדי הוה עילא בקרא דתורא Munich 95 ב"ר שמעו' לגבי הדדי הוה עייל' בקר' דתור' Soncino Print בר' שמעון בהדי הדדי הוה עייל בקרא דתורי Vatican 115 בר' שמע' גבי הדדי הוו עיילי בקרא דתורא Vatican 116-117 בר' שמעון לגבי הדדי הוי עיילא בקרא דתורא Vilna ברבי שמעון בהדי הדדי הוה עייל בקרא דתורי

Escorial G-I-3 3 תותי כרסייהו בין חד וחד ולא הוו נגעי בהו אמ' Florence II-I-8 ולא נגע בהו אמרה Hamburg 165 בין חד לחד ולא הוה פגעא בהו אמרה Munich 95 ביני תרויהו ולא הוה קנגע' בהו אמר' Soncino Print ביניהו ולא הוה נגעא בהו אמרה Vatican 115 לתרויי ולא הוה נגעה בהו אמרה Vatican 116-117 ביני תרווייהו ולא הוה נגעה בהו'' אמרה Vilna בינייהו ולא הוה נגעה בהו אמרה

Escorial G-I-3 4 להו ההוא מטרוניתא בניכם אינן שלכם אמ' לה שלהם גדול Florence II-I-8 ליה ההוא מטרוניתא בניכם אינן שלכם אמרי ליה שלהן גדולה Hamburg 165 להו ההיא מטרונית' בניכם אינן שלכם אמרי לה שלהן גדולה Munich 95 להו' ההי' מטרונית' בניכ' אינן שלכם אמרו לה שלה' גדול Soncino Print להו ההיא מטרוניתא בניכם אינן שלכם אמרו לה שלהן גדול Vatican 115 להו מטרונית' בניכם אינן שלכם אמרו לה שלהן גדול Vatican 116-117 להו מטרוניתא בניכם אינם שלכם אמרו לה שלהן גדול Vilna להו ההיא מטרוניתא בניכם אינם שלכם אמרו לה שלהן גדול

257

Escorial G-I-3 5 משלנו אמרה להו אי הכי כל שכן Florence II-I-8 משלנו אי הכי כל שכן מאי קאמרי Hamburg 165 משלנו אי הכי כל שכן Munich 95 משלנו א"ל אי הכי כ"ש Soncino Print משלנו כל שכן Vatican 115 משלנו מאי קאמרי לה אי הכי כל שכן Vatican 116-117 משלכם אי הכי כל שכן Vilna משלנו כל שכן

Escorial G-I-3 6 איכ' דאמרי הכי(ה) אמרו לה כי כאיש גבורתו ואיכ' Florence II-I-8 ליה איכ' דאמ' כי כאיש גבורתו איכ' Hamburg 165 איכא דאמרי הכי אמרו לה כי כאיש גבורתו ואיכא Munich 95 איכ' דא' הכי אמ' לה כי כאיש גבורתו ואיכ' Soncino Print איכ' דאמרי הכי אמרי לה כי כאיש גבורתו איכא Vatican 115 איכא דאמר' אמרו לה כי באיש גבורתו איכא Vatican 116-117 איכ' דא' הכי אמרו לה כי כאיש גבורתו איכ' Vilna איכא דאמרי הכי אמרו לה כי כאיש גבורתו איכא

Escorial G-I-3 7 דאמ' הכי אמרו לה אהבה דוחקת את הבשר ולמה להו Florence II-I-8 דאמרי אהבה רוחק<..> את הבשר למה להו Hamburg 165 דאמרי הכי אמרו לה אהבה דוחקת את הבשר ולמה להו Munich 95 דא' הכי אמ' לה אהב' דוחק' את הבשר ולמ' להן Soncino Print דאמרי הכי אמרו לה אהב' דוחק את הבשר ולמה להו Vatican 115 דאמ' הכי אמרו לה אהבת דוחקת את הבשר ולמה להו Vatican 116-117 דאמר הכי אמרו לה אהבה דוחקת את הבשר ולמה להו Vilna דאמרי הכי אמרו לה אהבה דוחקת את הבשר ולמה להו

Escorial G-I-3 8 לאהדורי והא כתו' אל תען כסיל כאולתו Florence II-I-8 לאהדורי לה והכת' אל תען כסיל באיולתו פן תשוה Hamburg 165 לאהדורי לה והכת' אל תען כסיל כאולתו וג' Munich 95 לאהדורי לה והכת' אל תען כסיל כאולתו Soncino Print אהדורי לה והא כתיב אל תען כסיל באיולתו Vatican 115 אהודורי להו הכת' אל תען כסיל כאיולתו Vatican 116-117 לאהדורי לה הכת' אל תען כסיל כאיולתו Vilna לאהדורי לה והא כתיב אל תען כסיל כאולתו

258

Escorial G-I-3 9 שלא להוציא (ע) לעז על בניהם שהם Florence II-I-8 לו גם אתה שלא להוציא לעז על בניהם Hamburg 165 שלא להוציא לעז על בניהם שהן Munich 95 שלא להוצי' לע' על בניהם Soncino Print שלא להוציא לעז על בניהם Vatican 115 שלא להוציא לעז על בניהם Vatican 116-117 ל שלא להוציא לעז על בניהם Vilna שלא להוציא לעז על בניהם

Escorial G-I-3 10 ממזרים אמ' ר' יוחנן איבריה דר' ישמ' בר' כחמת Florence II-I-8 אמ' ר' יוח' איבריה דר' ישמע' בר' יוסי כחמת Hamburg 165 ממזרין א'ר יוחנן אברי' דר' ישמעאל בר' יוסי כחמת Munich 95 א"ר יוחנן איברי' דר' ישמע' ב"ר יוסי כחמת Soncino Print אמ' ר' יוח' אבריה דר' ישמעאל בר יוסי כחמת Vatican 115 א"ר יוחנ' איברי' דר' ישמע' בר יוסי כחמת Vatican 116-117 אמר ר' יוחנן איבריה דר' ישמעאל בר' יוסי כחמת Vilna אמר רבי יוחנן איבריה דרבי ישמעאל ברבי] יוסי] כחמת

Escorial G-I-3 11 בת תשעה קבין אבריה דר' אלעז' בר' שמעון כחמת בת Florence II-I-8 בת תשעה קבין Hamburg 165 בת תשעת קבין איבריה דר' אלעזר בר' שמעון כחמת בת Munich 95 בת תשעת קבין Soncino Print בת תשע קבין Vatican 115 בת תשעת קבין איבריה דר' אלע' בר' שמע' כחמת בת Vatican 116-117 בת תשעת קבין איבריה דר' אלעזר בר' שמעון כחמת כת Vilna בת תשע קבין

Escorial G-I-3 12 תשעת קבין ואמרי לה בת חמשת קבין אמ' רב פפא Florence II-I-8 ואמרי לה בת שלשת קבין Hamburg 165 שבעת קבין אמ' רב פפא Munich 95 Soncino Print אמ' רב פפא Vatican 115 תשעת קבין א' רב פפא Vatican 116-117 תשעת קבין אמר רב פפא Vilna אמר רב פפא

259

Escorial G-I-3 13 איבריה דר' יוחנן כחמת בת חמשת קבין ואמרי לה Florence II-I-8 Hamburg 165 אבריה דר' יוחנן כחמת בת שלש קבין ואמרי לה כחמת Munich 95 אברי' דר' יוחנן כחמ' בת חמש' קבין ואמ' לה Soncino Print איבריה דר' יוחנן כחמת בת חמשת קבין ואמ' לה Vatican 115 איבריה דר' יוחנ' כחמת בת חמשת קבין ואמרי לה Vatican 116-117 איבריה דרב יוחנן כחמת בת חמשת קבין Vilna איבריה דרבי יוחנן כחמת בת חמשת קבין ואמרי לה

Escorial G-I-3 14 בת שלשת קבין איבריה דרב פפא גופיה כדקורי דהרפנאי Florence II-I-8 דרב פפא גופיה כי רקודי דהרפנאי Hamburg 165 בת חמש קבין איבריה דרב פפא גופיה כדקורי הרפנאי Munich 95 בת שלש' קבין איברי' דרב פפ' גופי' כדקוראי דהרפניא Soncino Print בת שלש' קבין דרב פפא גופיה כי דקורי דהרפנאי Vatican 115 בת שלשת קבין איבריה דרב פפא גופיה כי דקורי דהרפנאי Vatican 116-117 איבריה דרב פפא כי דקורי דנהר Vilna בת שלשת קבין דרב פפא גופיה כי דקורי דהרפנאי

Escorial G-I-3 15 Florence II-I-8 Hamburg 165 Munich 95 Soncino Print Vatican 115 Vatican 116-117 פמא Vilna

260

Appendix L: Synopsis of Yevamot 17a (Chapter Four)

261

Moscow 594 1 יתיב רב המ(מ)[נ]ונא קמיה דעולא וקא הואי בשמעת' אמ' Moscow 1017 יתיב רב המנונ' קמיה דעול' ויתיב וקא תהי בשמעתא אמ' Munich 95 יתיב רב המנונא קמיה דעולא וקא הווי שמעתא אמ' Oxford 20 ית<... <.. קמיה דעולא וקא הוי בשמעתא אמ' Oxford 248 יתיב רב המנונא קמיה דעולא וקא הוי בשמעתא אמ' (Pesaro (1509 יתיב רב המנונא קמיא דעולא וקא הוי בשמעתי' אמר Vatican 111 יתיב רב המנונ' קמיה דעולא וקא הוי בשמעתא אמ' Vilna יתיב רב המנונא קמיה דעולא וקא הוי בשמעתא אמר

Moscow 594 2 מאן גברא ומאן גברה אי לאו דהרפניא מאתיה איכסיף Moscow 1017 מה גברא ומה גברא אי לאו דהרפניא מאתי' איכסיף Munich 95 מה גבר' ומה גברא אי לאו דהרפניא מאתיה כסיף Oxford 20 מה גבר ..> <... גובריה אי לאו דהרפניא מאתיה איכסיף Oxford 248 מה גברא ומה גברא אי לאו דהרפניא מאתיה איכסיף (Pesaro (1509 מה גבר' ומה גברא אי' לאו דהרפני' מאיתה איכסיף Vatican 111 מה גברא ומה גברא אי לאו דהרפניא מאתיה איכסיף Vilna מה גברא ומה גברא אי לאו דהרפניא מאתיה אכסיף

Moscow 594 3 א"ל כסף גולגולתא להיכא יהבת א"ל לפום נהרא Moscow 1017 א"ל כסף גולגלתא להיכא יהבת אל לפום נהרא Munich 95 א"ל כסף גולגלתא להיכא יהבת א"ל לפום נהרא Oxford 20 אמ' ליה כסף גולגלתך להיכא יהבת אמ' ליה לפום נהרא Oxford 248 אמ' ליה כסף גולגלתא להיכא יהבת אמ' ליה לפום נהרא (Pesaro (1509 א"ל כסף גלגלת' להיכ' יהבת א"ל לפום נהר' Vatican 111 א"ל כסף גולגלתא להיכא יהבת לפום נהרא Vilna א"ל כסף גלגלתא להיכא יהבת א"ל לפום נהרא

Moscow 594 4 א"ל א"כ מפום נהרא את מאי הרפניא א"ר Moscow 1017 אם כן מפום נהרא את מאי הרפניא א"ר Munich 95 א"כ מפום נהרא את מאי הרפניא א"ר Oxford 20 אם כן מפום נהרא את מאי הרפניא אמ' ר' Oxford 248 אם כן מפום נהרא את מאי הרפניא אמ' ר' (Pesaro (1509 א"כ מפו' נהר' את מאי הרפני אמ' ר' Vatican 111 אם כן מפום נהרא את הרפניא א"ר Vilna א"ל א"כ מפום נהרא את מאי הרפניא אמר ר'

262

Moscow 594 5 זירא הר שהכל פוני' בו במתניתא תאנא Moscow 1017 זירא הר שהכל פונין בו במתניתא תנא Munich 95 זירא הר שכל פונה לו במתניתא תנא Oxford 20 זורא הר שהכל נפנים לו במתניתא תאנא Oxford 248 זירא הר שהכל פונים בו והיא עמוקה משאול במתניתא תנא (Pesaro (1509 זירא הר שהכל פונין בו במתנית תנא Vatican 111 זירא הר שהכל פונים בו במתני' תנא Vilna זירא הר שהכל פונין בו במתניתא תנא

Moscow 594 6 כל שאינו מכיר שבטו ומשפחתו נפנה לשם אמ' רבא Moscow 1017 כל שאינ' מכיר שבטו ומשפחתו יפנה [לשם] אמ' רבה Munich 95 כל שאינו מכיר שבטו ומשפחתי יפנה לשם אמ' רבא Oxford 20 כל שאינו מכיר שבטו ומשפחתו ניפנה לשם אמ' רבא Oxford 248 כל שאינו מכיר שבטו ומשפחתו נפנה לשם (Pesaro (1509 כל מ שאין מכיר משפחתו ושבטו נפנה לשם אמ' רבא Vatican 111 כל שאינו מכיר שבטו ומשפחתו נפנה לשם אמ' רבא Vilna כל שאין מכיר משפחתו ושבטו נפנה לשם אמר רבא

Moscow 594 7 והיא עמוקה משאול שנ' מיד שאול אפדם וממות אגאלם Moscow 1017 והיא עמוק' משאול שנ' מיד שאול אפדם וממות אגאלם Munich 95 והיא עמוקה משאול שנ' מיד שאול אפדם Oxford 20 והיא עמוקה משאול שנ' מיד שאול אפדם וג' Oxford 248 (Pesaro (1509 והיא עמוק' משאו' שנ' מיד שאו' אפדם וממות אגאל' Vatican 111 והיא עמוקה משאול שנ' מיד שאו' אפדם ...] להם תקנה] Vilna והיא עמוקה משאול שנאמר מיד שאול אפדם ממות אגאלם

Moscow 594 8 ואל פסולי דידהו לית להו תקנת' פסולי דהרפניא Moscow 1017 ואילו פסולי (ני) דידהו לית להו תקנתא פסולי דהרפניא Munich 95 ואילו פסולי דידהו לית להו תקנתא פסולי דהרפניא Oxford 20 ואילו פסולי דידהו לית להו תקנתא פסולי דהר פניא Oxford 248 (Pesaro (1509 ואילו פסול דידהו לית להו תקנת' פסולי דנה' פניא Vatican 111 ואילו פסולי דידהו לית להו תקנתא פסולי דהרפניא Vilna ואילו פסול דידהו לית להו תקנתא פסולי דהרפניא

263

Moscow 594 9 משו' פסולי דמישון דמישון משו' פסולי דתרמוד דתרמוד Moscow 1017 משום פסולי דמישון פסולי דמישון משום פסולי דתרמוד ותרמוד Munich 95 משום פסולי דמישון דמישון משום פסולי דתרמוד דתרמוד Oxford 20 משום פסולי דמישון ומישון משום פסולי דתדמור ותדמור Oxford 248 (Pesaro (1509 משום פסולי דמיש' ופסולי דמיש' משו' פסולי דתרמו' פסולי דתרמו' Vatican 111 משום פסולי דמישן פסולי דמישן משום פסולי דתדמור דתמור Vilna משום פסולי דמישון ופסולי דמישון משום פסולי דתרמוד פסולי דתרמוד

Moscow 594 10 משו' (פסולי) עבדי שלמה ) ( והיינו דאמרי אינשי קבא Moscow 1017 משום עבדי שלמה והיינו דאמרי אינשי קבה Munich 95 משום עבדי שלמה והיינו דאמרי אינשי קבא Oxford 20 מש' עבדי שלמה והיינו דאמרי אינשי קבה Oxford 248 היינו דאמרי אינשי קבא (Pesaro (1509 משו' עבדי שלמה והיינו דאמרי אינשי קבא Vatican 111 משום עבדי שלמה והיינו דאמרי אינשי קבא Vilna משום עבדי שלמה והיינו דאמרי אינשי קבא

Moscow 594 11 רבא וקבא זוטא מינגד ואזיל לשאול ומשאול לתרמוד ומתרמוד Moscow 1017 רבה וקבה זוטרא מגנדר ואזיל לשאול משאול לתרמוד מתרמוד Munich 95 רבה וקבא זוטרא מיגנדר ואזיל לשאול משאול (לתרמות) לתרמוד Oxford 20 רבה וקבה זוטא מיגנדרי ואזיל לשאול ומשאול לתדמור ומתדמור Oxford 248 רבה וקבא זוטא מגנדר ואזיל לשאול ומשאול לתרמוד ומתרמוד (Pesaro (1509 רבא וקב' זוטא מיגנדר ואזיל לשאול ומשאו' לתרמוד מתרמו' Vatican 111 רבא מקבא זוטא מיגנדר ואזיל לשאול לשאול ואזיל לתדמור מתדמור Vilna רבא וקבא זוטא מיגנדר ואזיל לשאול ומשאול לתרמוד ומתרמוד

Moscow 594 12 למישון וממישון להרפניא Moscow 1017 למישון ממישון להרפניא Munich 95 מתרמוד למישן ממישן להרפניא Oxford 20 למישון וממישון להרפניא Oxford 248 למישן וממישן להרפניא פסולי דהרפניא משום פסולי דמישן דמישן (Pesaro (1509 למישן וממישן לנהר פניא Vatican 111 למישן ממישן להרפניא Vilna למישן וממישן להרפניא

264

Moscow 594 13 Moscow 1017 Munich 95 Oxford 20 Oxford 248 משום פסולי דתרמוד דתרמוד משום עבדי שלמה ואמ' רבא היא Pesaro (1509) Vatican 111 Vilna

Moscow 594 14 Moscow 1017 Munich 95 Oxford 20 Oxford 248 עמוקה משאול דאלו פסולי דהתם לית בהו תקנתא ואלו בשאול Pesaro (1509) Vatican 111 Vilna

Moscow 594 15 Moscow 1017 Munich 95 Oxford 20 Oxford 248 בתרמוד מיד שאול אפדם מיד מות אגאלם Pesaro (1509) Vatican 111 Vilna

265

Appendix M: Synopsis of Ketubot 15b-16a (Chapter Five)

266

Vatican 487 1 האשה שנתארמלה או שנתגרשה היא אומרת בתולה נשאתי והוא אומ' Vatican 130 האשה שנתארמלה או שנתגרשה היא אומר' בתול' נישאתי והוא אומ' Vatican 112 האשה שנתארמלה או שנתגרשה היא אומ' בתולה נשאתי והוא אומ' Munich 95 Soncino Print Vilna האשה שנתארמלה או שנתגרשה היא אומרת בתולה נשאתני והוא אומר

Vatican 487 2 לא כי אלא אלמנה נשאתיך אם יש עדים שיצאה בהינומה Vatican 130 לא כי אלמנה נשאתיך אם יש עדים שיצתה בהינומה Vatican 112 לא כי אלא אלמנה נשאתיך אם יש עדי' שיצת' בהי' Munich 95 Soncino Print Vilna לא כי אלא אלמנה נשאתיך אם יש עדים שיצאת בהינומא

Vatican 487 3 וראשה פרוע כתובתה מאתים ר' יוחנן בן ברוקה אומ' Vatican 130 וראשה פרוע כתובתה מאתים ר' יוח' בן ברוקה או' Vatican 112 נומה וראשה פרועה כתובתה מאתי' ר' יוחנ' בן ברו(כ)[ק] אומ' Munich 95 Soncino Print Vilna וראשה פרוע כתובתה מאתים רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר

Vatican 487 4 אף חילוק קליות ראייה ומודה ר' יהושע באומ' לחביריו Vatican 130 אף חילוק קליות ראיה ומודה ר' יהושע באו' לחבירו Vatican 112 אף חילוק קליות ראיה ומוד' ר' יהושע באומ' (?ב/כ?) [ל]חבירו Munich 95 Soncino Print Vilna אף חילוק קליות ראיה ומודה רבי יהושע באומר לחבירו

Vatican 487 5 שדה זו של אביך היה ולקחתיה ממנו שהוא נאמן שהפה Vatican 130 שדה זו של אביך היה ולקחתיה ממנו שהוא נאמן שהפה Vatican 112 שדה זו של אביך היתה [ו]לקחתיה ממנ' שהוא נאמן שהפה Munich 95 Soncino Print Vilna שדה זו של אביך היתה ולקחתיה הימנו שהוא נאמן שהפה

Vatican 487 6 שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר אם יש עדי' שהוא Vatican 130 שאסר הוא הפה שהיתיר ואם יש עדים שהוא Vatican 112 שאסר הוא א' הפה שהיתיר' אב' אם יש עדים שהיא Munich 95 Soncino Print Vilna שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר ואם יש עדים שהיא

267

Vatican 487 7 של אביו והוא אומ' לקחתיו ממנו אינו נאמן Vatican 130 של אביו והוא אומר לקחתיה ממנו אינו נאמן Vatican 112 של אביו והוא אומ' לקחתי' ממנ' אינ' נאמ?ן Munich 95 Soncino Print Vilna של אביו והוא אומר לקחתיה הימנו אינו נאמן

Vatican 487 8 טעמא דאיכא עדים הא ליכא עדים בעל מהימן Vatican 130 טעמ' דאיכא עדים הא ליכא עדים בעל מהימן Vatican 112 ברי טעמ' דאיכ' עדי' הא ליכא עדי' הבעל מהימן Munich 95 טעמ' דאיכא עדים הא ליכא עדים בעל מהימן Soncino Print Vilna גמ' טעמא דאיכא עדים הא ליכא עדים בעל מהימן

Vatican 487 9 לימא תנן סתמא דלא כרבן גמליאל דאי כרבן Vatican 130 נימא תנן סתמא כר' יהושע ודלא כרבן גמל' דאי רבן Vatican 112 לימא תנן סתמא כר' יהושע והלא כרבן גמליאל האי רבן Munich 95 לימ' תנן סתמ' דלא כר"ג דאי כר"ג Soncino Print Vilna לימא תנן סתמא דלא כרבן גמליאל דאי ר"ג

Vatican 487 10 גמליאל הא אמ' איהי מהימנא אפילו תימא רבן גמליאל עד Vatican 130 גמל' הא' איהי מהימנא אפילו תימא רב' גמל' עד Vatican 112 גמליאל דאמ' איהי מהימנ' אפי' תימ' רבן גמלי' עד Munich 95 הא אמ' איהי מהימנא אפי' תימ' ר"ג עד Soncino Print Vilna הא אמר איהי מהימנא אפילו תימא רבן גמליאל עד

Vatican 487 11 כאן לא קא א' רבן גמל' אלא ברי Vatican 130 כאן לא קא' רב' שב"ג התם דנאמנת אלא בברי' Vatican 112 כאן לא קאמ' רבן גמליאל דנאמנ' אלא ברי Munich 95 כאן לא קאמ' ר"ג אלא בבריא Soncino Print Vilna כאן לא קאמר ר"ג התם אלא בברי

Vatican 487 12 ושמא אבל ברי וברי לא א' ודקא ארי לה Vatican 130 ושמא אבל הכא דברי' וברי' לא ודקארי לה Vatican 112 ושמא אבל ברי וברי לא ודקארי לה Munich 95 ושמא אבל בבריא ובריא לא אמ' ודקארי לה Soncino Print Vilna ושמא אבל הכא בברי וברי לא אמר ודקארי לה

268

Vatican 487 13 מאי קא ארי לא פשיטא דברי וברי Vatican 130 מאי ק[א]רי לה פשיט' דבריא ובריא Vatican 112 מאי קארי לה הא ודאי ברי וברי Munich 95 מאי קארי לה פשיטא דברי וברי Soncino Print Vilna מאי קארי לה הא ברי וברי

Vatican 487 14 הוא מהו דתימא כיון דרוב נשים Vatican 130 הוא כיון דאמרה בתולה נישאתי ורוב נשים Vatican 112 הוא מהו (דב) דתימ' כיון דרוב נשים Munich 95 הוא מהו דתימ' כיון דרוב נשים Soncino Print Vilna הוא כיון דרוב נשים

Vatican 487 15 בתולות נשאות כברי ושמא דמי Vatican 130 נישאות בתולות הוה ליה ברי דידיה כי שמא Vatican 112 בתולו' נישאות בברי ושמא דמי Munich 95 בתולות נשאות כברי ושמא דמי Soncino Print Vilna בתולות נישאות כי ברי ושמא דמי

Vatican 487 16 ותהוי ברי דידיה לגבי דידה כשמא קא משמע לן הכי Vatican 130 קמ"ל והכי Vatican 112 (ק?בל?) הכי Munich 95 ותהוי ברי דידיה לגבי דידה כשמא קמ"ל הכי Soncino Print Vilna והכי

Vatican 487 17 נמי מסתברא דהתני' רבן גמליאל היא מדקתני סופא מדקתני) סופא) Vatican 130 נמי מסתברא מדקתני Vatican 112 נמי מסתברא מדקתני Munich 95 נמי מסתברא מדקתני Soncino Print Vilna נמי מסתברא מדקתני

Vatican 487 18 מודה ר' יהושע אי אמרת בשלמא איירי רבן Vatican 130 מודה ר' יהושע אי אמרת בשל' איידי רב' Vatican 112 מודה ר' יהושע אי אמר' בשלמה איירי ר' Munich 95 מודה ר' יהוש' אי אמרת בשלמא איירי בה במודה ר"ג Soncino Print Vilna ומודה רבי יהושע אי אמרת בשלמא איירי ר"ג

269

Vatican 487 19 גמליאל היינו דקא תני מודה ר' יהושע Vatican 130 שב"ג [במודי] היינו דקא' ומודי ר' יהושע Vatican 112 גמלי' במוד' היינ' דקתני ומודה ר' יהושע מי) Munich 95 היינו דקתני מודה ר' יהושע Soncino Print Vilna במודה שפיר

Vatican 487 20 אלא אי אמרת לא איירי Vatican 130 אל' אי אמרת לא איירי רבן Vatican 112 ס... ?י?הושע סבר) אלא אי אמר' לא איירי ב' רבן Munich 95 אלא אי אמרת לא איירי בה Soncino Print Vilna אלא אי אמרת לא איירי ר"ג

Vatican 487 21 מאי מודה מי סברת [ר'] Vatican 130 גמליא' במודה ר' יהושע למאן מודי מי סברת ר' Vatican 112 גמליאל [מודה] באדם מאי מוד' ר' Munich 95 (במודה) מאי מודה מי סברת ר' Soncino Print Vilna במודה רבי יהושע למאן מודה מי סברת ר'

Vatican 487 22 יהושע אהאי פירקא קאי אמיגו קאי ואפירקין Vatican 130 יהוש' הכא קאי אמיגו קאי ואפירקין Vatican 112 יהוש' [?מ?י? סברת] הכא קאי מע<..>אי<..> ואפירקי Munich 95 יהושע אהאי פירקא קאי לא אמגו קאי ואפירקין Soncino Print Vilna יהושע אהאי פירקין קאי אמגו קאי ואפירקין

Vatican 487 23 קמא קאי אהייא א[י]לימא אהא היתה מעוברת Vatican 130 קמא אהייא אילימא אהא הייתה מעוברת Vatican 112 [קמא] דלעיל קאי אהי' אילימ' אהא היתה מעובר' Munich 95 קמא קאי אהייא אילימא אהא היתה מעוברת Soncino Print Vilna קמא קאי אהייא אילימא אהא היתה מעוברת ואמרו לה

Vatican 487 24 מה טיבו של עובר זה מאיש פלוני וכהן הוא Vatican 130 מה טיבו של עובר זה של איש פלוני וכהן הוא Vatican 112 מה טיבו של עובר זה מאיש פלני וכהן הוא Munich 95 מה טיבו של עובר זה מאיש פלוני וכהן הוא Soncino Print Vilna מה טיבו של עובר זה מאיש פלוני וכהן הוא

270

Vatican 487 25 רבן גמליאל ור' אליעזר אומרין נאמנת ר' יהושע אומ' Vatican 130 רבן גמ' ור' ור' אלעזר או' נאמנת ר' יהושע או' Vatican 112 רבן גמליא' ור' אליעזר אומ' נאמ' ור' יהושע אומ' Munich 95 ר"ג ור' אליעזר או' נאמנת ור' יהושע או' Soncino Print Vilna ר"ג ור"א אומרים נאמנת רבי יהושע אומר

Vatican 487 26 לא מפיה אנו חיין התם מאי מגו איכא הרי Vatican 130 לא מפיה אנו חיין התם מאי מגו איכא הרי Vatican 112 לא [מ]פיה אני חיין הת' מאי מיגו איכ' הרי Munich 95 לא מפיה אנו חיין התם (מן) מאי מגו איכא הרי Soncino Print Vilna לא מפיה אנו חיין התם מאי מגו איכא הרי

Vatican 487 27 כריסה בין שיניה אלא אהא ראוה מדבר' עם אחד Vatican 130 כריסה בין שיניה אלא אהא ראוה מדברת עם אחד Vatican 112 כריסה בין שיניה ואלא אהא ראוה מדבר' עם אחד Munich 95 כריסה בין שיניה אלא אהא ראוה מדברת עם אחד Soncino Print Vilna כריסה בין שיניה אלא אהא ראוה מדברת עם אחד ואמרו

Vatican 487 28 מה טיבו של זה איש פלוני וכהן Vatican 130 מה טיבו של עובר) זה של) איש פלוני וכהן Vatican 112 מה טיב[ו] של זה איש פלני וכהן Munich 95 מה טיבו של זה איש פלוני וכהן Soncino Print Vilna לה מה טיבו של איש זה איש פלוני וכהן

Vatican 487 29 הוא רבן גמליאל ור' אליעז' אומ' נאמנת ר' יהושע אומר Vatican 130 הוא רבן [גמלי?א'?]ור' אלע' או' נאמנת ור' יהושע או' Vatican 112 הו' רבן גמליא' ור' אלעזר אומר נאמנת ור' יהוש' אומ' Munich 95 הוא ר"ג ור' אליעזר או' נאמנת ור' יהושע או' Soncino Print Vilna הוא ר"ג ור"א אומרים נאמנת רבי יהושע אומר

Vatican 487 30 לא מפיה אנו חיין התם מאי מיגו איכא הניחא לזעירי Vatican 130 לא מפיה אנו חיין התם מאי מגו איכא הניחא לזעירי Vatican 112 לא מפיה אנו חיין הת' [מאי] מיגו איכ' בשלמה לזעירי Munich 95 לא מפיה אנו חיין התם מאי מגו איכא הניחא לזעירי Soncino Print Vilna לא מפיה אנו חיין התם מאי מגו איכא הניחא לזעירי

271

Vatican 487 31 דא' מדברת נסתרה מיגו דאי בעיא אמרה לא נבעלתי Vatican 130 דאמ' מאי מדברת נסתרה דמיגו דאיבע' אמרה לא [נבעלתי] Vatican 112 דאמ' נסתר' מיגו דאי בעי' אמר' לא נבעלתי Munich 95 דאמ' נסתרה מגי דאמרה לא נבעלתי Soncino Print Vilna דאמר מאי מדברת נסתרה מגו דאי בעיא אמרה לא נבעלתי

Vatican 487 32 וקא אמרה נבעלתי מהימנא אלא לרב אסי דאמ' Vatican 130 ואמרה נבעלתי מ(וה)[ה]ימאלא לרב אסי דאמ' Vatican 112 וקאמ' נבעלתי מהימנ' אלא לרב אשי דאמר Munich 95 וקאמרה [לכשר] נבעלתי מנא<..> אלא לרב אסי דאמ' Soncino Print Vilna וקאמרה נבעלתי מהימנא אלא לרב אסי דאמר מאי

Vatican 487 33 נבעלה מאי מיגו איכא אלא אהא היא אומרת מוכת Vatican 130 נבעלה מאי מיגו איכא אלא אהא היא אומרת מוכת Vatican 112 מדבר' נבעל' מאי מיגו איכ' אלא אהא היא אומ' מוכת Munich 95 נבעלה מאי מגו איכא אלא [אהא] היא אומרת מוכת Soncino Print Vilna מדברת נבעלת מאי מגו איכא ואלא אהא היא אומרת מוכת

Vatican 487 34 עץ אני והוא אומר לא כי אלא דרוסת איש את Vatican 130 עץ אני והוא או' לא כי אלא דרוסת איש Vatican 112 עץ אני והוא אומר לא כי אלא דרוס' איש [את] Munich 95 עץ אני והוא אומ' לא כי אלא דרוסת איש את Soncino Print Vilna עץ אני והוא אומר לא כי אלא דרוסת איש את

Vatican 487 35 רבן גמליאל ור' אליעזר אומרין נאמנת ר' יהושע אומ' לא Vatican 130 רבן גמל' ור' אלע' או' נאמנת ור' יהושע או' לא Vatican 112 רבן גמליא' ור' אלי' אומ' נאמנת ור' יהוש' אומ' לא Munich 95 ר"ג ור' אליעזר או' נאמנת ור' יהושע או' לא Soncino Print Vilna ר"ג ור"א אומרים נאמנת ורבי יהושע אומר לא

Vatican 487 36 מפיה אנו חיין התם מאי מיגו איכא בשלמא לר' Vatican 130 מפיה אנו חיין התם מאי מ[י]גו איכא בשלמא לר' Vatican 112 מפיה אנו חיין הת' נמי מאי מיגו איכא בשלמ' לר' Munich 95 מפיה אנו חיין התם מאי מגו איכא בשלמ' לר' Soncino Print Vilna מפיה אנו חיין התם מאי מגו איכא בשלמא לרבי

272

Vatican 487 37 אלעזר דא' במנה ולא כלום מינו דאי בעי אמ' מוכת Vatican 130 אלע' דא' במנה ולא כלום דמיגו דאיבעיא אמרה מוכת Vatican 112 אלעזר דאמ' במנ' ולא כלום מיגו דאיבעי' אמר' מוכת Munich 95 אלעזר דאמ' במנה ולא כלום מגו דא ב<..> אמרה מוכת Soncino Print Vilna אלעזר דאמר במנה ולא כלום מגו דאי בעיא אמרה מוכת

Vatican 487 38 עץ אני תחתיך ואית לי מאתן וקא אמ' מעיקרא דלית Vatican 130 עץ אני תחתיך ואית ליה מאתן וקאמ' מעיקרא דלית Vatican 112 עץ אני תחתי' דאית לי מא<..> וקאמ' מעיקר' דלית Munich 95 עץ אני תחתיך ואית לה מאתן וקאמרה מעיקרא דלית Soncino Print Vilna עץ אני תחתיך ואית לה מאתים וקאמרה מעיקרא דלית

Vatican 487 39 לה אלא מנה מהימנא אלא לר' יוחנן דא' במאתים ומנה Vatican 130 ליה אלא מנה מהימנא אלא לר' יוח' דא' במאתים ומנה Vatican 112 לה אלא מנה מהימנא אלא לר' יוחנ' דאמ' במאתי' ומנה Munich 95 לה אלא מנה מהמנא אלא לר' יוחנן דאמ' במאתים מנה Soncino Print אלא לר' יוחנן במאתים ומנה Vilna לה אלא מנה מהימנא אלא לר' יוחנן דאמר במאתים ומנה

Vatican 487 40 מאי מיגו איכא אלא אהא הנושא את האשה Vatican 130 מאי מיגו איכ' אלא הא דתנן הנושא את האשה Vatican 112 מאי מיגו איכ' אלא אהא הנושא את (הא) האשה Munich 95 מאי מגו איכא אלא אהא הנושא את האשה Soncino Print מאי מיגו איכא אלא אהא הנושא את האשה Vilna מאי מגו איכא אלא אהא הנושא את האשה

Vatican 487 41 ולא מצא לה בתולים היא אומרת משארסתני(נאסנ) נאנסתי ונסתחפה Vatican 130 ולא מצא בה בתולים היא אומרת משאירסתני נאנסת' ונסתחפה Vatican 112 ולא מצא לה בתולי' הי' אומרת משאירסתני נאנסתי ונסתחפה Munich 95 ולא מצא לה בתולים היא אומרת משא<..>תני נאנסתי ונסתחפה Soncino Print ולא מצא לה בתולים היא אומרת משארסתני נאנסתי ונסתחפה Vilna ולא מצא לה בתולים היא אומרת משארסתני נאנסתי ונסתחפה

Vatican 487 42 שדהו והוא אומ' לא כי אלא עד שלא אירסתיך נאנסת Vatican 130 שדהו והוא או' לא כי אלא עד שלא אירסתיך Vatican 112 שדהו והוא אומ' [לא] כי אלא עד שלא אירסתיך Munich 95 שדהו והוא או' לא כי אלא עד שלא אירסתיך נאנסת Soncino Print שדהו והו' אומ' לא כי אלא עד שלא אירסתיך Vilna שדהו והוא אומר לא כי אלא עד שלא אירסתיך

273

Vatican 487 43 והיה מקחו מקח טעות רבן גמליאל ור' אליעז' אומרין נאמנ' Vatican 130 והיה מקח(?ו?)[י מקח [טעות] רבן גמל' ור' אליע' או' נאמנת Vatican 112 והיה מקחי מקח טעות רב' גמליאל ור' אלעז' אומ' [נאמנת Munich 95 והיה מקחי מקח טעות ר"ג ור' אלעזר או' נאמנת Soncino Print רבן גמליאל ור' אליעזר אומ' נאמנת Vilna ר"ג ור"א אומרים נאמנת

Vatican 487 44 ר' יהושע אומ' לא מפיה אנו חיין התם מאי Vatican 130 ור' יהושע או' לא מפיה אנו חיין התם נמי מאי Vatican 112 ור' יהושע אומ'] לא מפיה אנו חיין התם מאי(ו) Munich 95 ור' יהושע אומ' לא מפיה אנו חיין מאי Soncino Print ור' יהוש' או' לא מפיה אנו חיין Vilna ור' יהושע אומר לא מפיה אנו חיין

Vatican 487 45 מיגו (מאי) איכא מיגו דאי בעו אמ' מוכת עץ Vatican 130 מגו איכא מיגו דאיבעיא [אמרה מוכת ע?ץ?] Vatican 112 מיגו איכ' מיגו דאיבעי' אמר' מוכת עץ Munich 95 מגו איכא מגו דאי בעיא אמרה מוכת עץ Soncino Print דמיגו דאיבעיה אמרה מוכת עץ Vilna דמגו דאי בעיא אמרה מוכת עץ

Vatican 487 46 אני דלא קא פסלה נפשה מכהונה וקא אמרה Vatican 130 אני דלא קא פסלא נפשה מן הכהונה וקא' Vatican 112 אני תחתיך דלא קא פס(ו)ל נפשה מכהונ' וקאמר' Munich 95 אני דלא קא פסלה נפשה לכהונה דקאמרה Soncino Print אני דלא קא פסלה נפש' מכהונ' וקאמ' Vilna אני תחתיך דלא קא פסלה נפשה מכהונה וקאמרה

Vatican 487 47 (נאסנתי) נאנסתי דקא פסלה נפשה מכהונה Vatican 130 נאנסתי דקא פסלה נפשה מן הכהו' משום הכי אמ' Vatican 112 נאנסתי וקא פסלה נפשא מכהונ' Munich 95 נאנסתי דקא פסלה נפשה לכהונה [משו' הכי אמ' Soncino Print נאנסתי דקא פסלה נפשה מכהונה משום הכי קאמ' Vilna נאנסתי דקא פסלה נפשה מכהונה משום הכי קאמר

Vatican 487 48 מהימנא וקא א' ליה ר' יהושע לרבן גמליאל Vatican 130 רבן גמל' נאמנת וקא"ל ר' יהושע לרבן גמ' Vatican 112 מהימנ' וקאמ' לי' ר' יהושע לרב' גמלי' Munich 95 ר"ג] מהימנא וקא"ל ר' יהושע לר"ג Soncino Print רבן גמליאל דמהימנ' וקא' ר' יהושע לרבן גמליאל Vilna ר"ג דמהימנא וקאמר רבי יהושע לר"ג

274

Vatican 487 49 בהאי מיגו דהכא מודינא לך בההוא מיגו דהתם פליגנא עלך Vatican 130 בהאי מיגו דהכא מודינא לך בהאי מיגו דה(כא)[תםפליגנא Vatican 112 בהאי מיגו(..) דהכא מודינ' לך בההיא מיגו דהת' פלגינ' [עלך] Munich 95 בהאי מגו דהכא נא<..> לך בההוא מגו דהתם פליגנא עלך Soncino Print בהאי מגו דהכא מודינא לך בההוא מגו דהתם פליגנא עילווך Vilna בהאי מגו דהכא מודינא לך בההוא מגו דהתם פליגנא עילווך

Vatican 487 50 [מכדי האי מגו והאי מגו מאי שנא האי Vatican 130 ומאי שנא ההוא Vatican 112 מכדי האי מיגו (דהת) והאי מיגו מאי שנא האי Munich 95 ומאי שנא Soncino Print מאי שנא האי מיגו מהאי מיגו Vilna מכדי האי מגו והאי מגו מאי שנא האי

Vatican 487 51 מהאי] ומאי שנא התם אין שור שחוט לפניך הכא Vatican 130 מיגו מה(הו)א[י] מיגו התם שו' טבוח לפניך הכא אין Vatican 112 מיגו מהאי מיגו מהכ' אין שור שחוט לפ[ניך] הת' Munich 95 הכא אין שור שחוט לפניך התם Soncino Print הכא אין שור שחוט לפניך הת' Vilna מגו מהאי מגו הכא אין שור שחוט לפניך התם

Vatican 487 52 הרי שור שחוט לפניך וכיון דרוב נשים בתולות נשאות Vatican 130 שור טבוח לפניך וכיון דרוב נשים תחילה בתולות נישאות Vatican 112 שור שחוט לפניך כיון דרוב נשי' בתולות נישאות Munich 95 הרי שור שחוט לפניך וכיון דרוב נשים בתולות נישאות Soncino Print הרי שור שחוט לפניך וכיון דרוב נשים בתולות נישאות Vilna הרי שור שחוט לפניך וכיון דרוב נשים בתולות נישאות

Vatican 487 53 כי לא אתו עדים מאי הוי Vatican 130 כי ליכא עדים מאי הוי Vatican 112 כי לא אתי עדי' מאי הו?א? נימא הלך אחר רוב Munich 95 כי לא אתו עדים נמי נימא הלך אחר רוב Soncino Print כי לא אתו עדי' מאי הוי Vilna כי לא אתו עדים מאי הוי

Vatican 487 54 אמ' רבינא Vatican 130 אמ' רבינא Vatican 112 נשי' ורוב נשי' בתולו' נישאות אמ' רבינא Munich 95 נשים ורוב נשים בתולות נשאות רוב) נשים בתולות) [אמ' רבינא Soncino Print אמ' רבינ' Vilna אמר רבינא

275

Vatican 487 55 משום דאיכא למימר רוב נשים בתולות נשאות ומיעוט אלמנ[ו]ת וכל Vatican 130 משום דאיכא למימ' רוב נשים בתולות [נישא?ו?ת] וכל Vatican 112 משו' דאיכי' למימ' רוב נשי' בתולות נישאות ומיעוט אלמנות וכל Munich 95 משו' דאיכא למימר] רוב נשים בתולות נישאות ומיעוט אלמנות וכל Soncino Print משום דאיכא למימר רוב נשים בתולות נישאות ומיעוט אלמנות וכל Vilna משום דאיכא למימר רוב נשים בתולות נישאות ומיעוט אלמנות וכל

Vatican 487 56 הנשאת בתולה יש לה קול Vatican 130 הנשאת בתולה יש לה קול Vatican 112 [ה]נישא בתול' יש לה קול Munich 95 הנשאת בתולה יש לה קול Soncino Print הנישאת בתולה יש לה קול Vilna הנשאת בתולה יש לה קול

276

Appendix N: Synopsis of Kiddushin 70a-b (Chapter Six)

277

Vatican 11 1 אמ' רבה בר רב הונא כל הנושא אשה שאינה הוגנת Oxford 248 אמ' רבה בר רב הונא כל הנושא אשה שאינה הוגנת Munich 95 א' רבה בר רב הונ' כל הנוש' אש' שאינה הוגנ' Spanish Print אמר רבה בר בר חנא כל הנושא אשה שאינה הוגנת Venice Print אמר רבה בר בר חנה כל הנושא אשה שאינה הוגנת Vilna אמר רבה בר בר חנה כל הנושא אשה שאינה הוגנת

Vatican 11 2 לו כאילו חרשו לכ' העולם כולו וזרעו מלח שנ' אלה Oxford 248 לו Munich 95 לו Spanish Print לו Venice Print לו Vilna לו

Vatican 11 3 העולים מתל מלח תל חרשה Oxford 248 מעלה עליו הכתוב כאלו חרשו Munich 95 מעל' עליו הכתו' כאילו חרשו Spanish Print מעלה עליו הכתוב כאלו ח<..>שו Venice Print מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו חרשו Vilna מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו חרשו

Vatican 11 4 Oxford 248 כל העולם כלו וזרעו מלח שנ' וכל העולים מתל מלח Munich 95 כל העול' כולו וזרעו מלח שנ' אלה הערלי' מתל מלח Spanish Print לכל העולם כלו וזרעו כלה שנאמר ואלה העולים מתל מלח Venice Print לכל העולם כולו וזרעו מלח שנאמר אלה העולים מתל מלח Vilna לכל העולם כולו וזרעו מלח שנאמר ואלה העולים מתל מלח

Vatican 11 5 אמ' רבה בר רב הונא כל Oxford 248 תל חרש אמ' רבה א' רב כל Munich 95 תל חרש' א' רב אד' א' רב כל Spanish Print תל חרשה אמ' רבא בר רב אדא אמ' רב כל Venice Print תל חרשא אמ' רבה בר רב אדא אמר רב כל Vilna תל חרשא אמר רבה בר רב אדא אמר רב כל

Vatican 11 6 הנוש' אשה לשו' ממון הוויין ליה בנים שאינן מהוגנים שנ' Oxford 248 הנושא אשה לשום ממון הויין ליה בנין שאינם מהוגנין שנ' Munich 95 הנוש' אש' לשום ממון הויין ליה בני' שאינן מהוגנין שנ' Spanish Print הנושא אשה לשום ממון הויין לו בנים שאינם הגונים שנאמר Venice Print הנושא אשה לשום ממון הווין לו בנים שאינן מהוגנים שנאמר Vilna הנושא אשה לשום ממון הויין לו בנים שאינן מהוגנים שנאמר

278

Vatican 11 7 בי'י בגדו כי בנים זרים ילדו ושמא תאמר ממון פלט Oxford 248 ביי' בגדו כי בנים זרים ילדו ושמ' תאמר ממונם פלט Munich 95 ביי בגדו כי בני' זרי' ילדו ושמ' תאמ' ממון פלט Spanish Print ביי' בגדו בי בנים זרים ילדו Venice Print בה' בגדו וגו' ושמא תא' ממון פליט Vilna בה' בגדו כי בנים זרים ילדו ושמא תאמר ממון פלט

Vatican 11 8 ת'ל עתה יאכלם חלק את חלקיהם Oxford 248 ת"ל עתה יאכל' חודש Munich 95 ת"ל() עתה יאכלם חדש Spanish Print עתה יאכלם חדש את חלקיהם ושמא תאמר Venice Print תלמוד לומ' עתה יאכלם חודש את תחלקיהם Vilna תלמוד לומר עתה יאכלם חדש את חלקיהם

Vatican 11 9 שמא תאמר חלקו Oxford 248 ושמא תאמר חלקו Munich 95 ושמ' תאמ' חלקו Spanish Print ממונם פלט תלמוד לומר עתה יאכלם חדש ושמא תאמר חלקו Venice Print ושמא תאמר חלקו Vilna ושמא תאמר חלקו

Vatican 11 10 ולא חלקה ת'ל חלקיהם ושמא תאמר לזמן מרובה Oxford 248 ולא חלקה ת"ל חלקיהם ושמא תאמר לזמן מרובה Munich 95 ולא חלק' ת"ל חלקיהם ושמ' תאמר לזמן מרוב' Spanish Print ולא חלקה תלמוד לומר חלקיהם ושמא תאמר לזמן מרובה Venice Print ולא חלקה תלמוד לומ' חלק הם ושמא תאמר לזמן מרובה Vilna ולא חלקה תלמוד לומר חלקיהם ושמא תאמר לזמן מרובה

Vatican 11 11 ת'ל חדש מאי משמע אמ' רב נחמן בר יצחק Oxford 248 ת"ל חודש מאי משמ' א' רב נחמן בר יצחק Munich 95 ת"ל חדש מאי משמ' א' רב נחמ' בר יצח' Spanish Print תלמוד לומר חדש מאי משמעא אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק Venice Print תלמוד לומר חודש מאי משמע אמ' רב נחמן בר יצחק Vilna ת"ל חדש מאי משמע אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק

Vatican 11 12 חדש נכנ' חדש יוצא וממונן כלה אמ' רבה בר רב Oxford 248 חדש נכנס וחדש יצא וממונם אבד וא' רבה א' רב Munich 95 חדש נכנס וחדש יוצ' וממונה אבד וא' רב אד' בר Spanish Print חדש נכנס וחדש יוצא וממון כלה אמר רבא בר רב Venice Print חודש נכנס וחוד' יצא וממונם אבד ואמר רבה בר רב Vilna חדש נכנס וחדש יצא וממונם אבד ואמר רבה בר רב

279

Vatican 11 13 אדא אמ' רב א?ד?א אמ' רב ואמרי לה אמ' רב Oxford 248 הונא Munich 95 אהב' ואמ' לה א' רב Spanish Print אדא ואמרי לה אמ' רב Venice Print אדא ואמרי לה אמ' רבי Vilna אדא ואמרי לה אמר רבי

Vatican 11 14 סלא אמ' רב המנו' אמ' רב כל הנוש' אשה שאינה Oxford 248 כל הנושא אשה שאינה Munich 95 סלא א' רב המנונ' כל הנוש' אש' שאינ' Spanish Print סלא אמ' רב המנונא כל הנושא אשה שאינה Venice Print סלא אמר רב המונא כל הנושא אשה שאינה Vilna סלא אמר רב המנונא כל הנושא אשה שאינה

Vatican 11 15 הוגנת לו אליהו כופתו והקב'ה רוצעו ותנא על Oxford 248 הוגנת לו אליהו כופתו והקב"ה רוצען ותנא על Munich 95 הוגנ' לו אליהו כופתו והק"ב רוצעו ותנא על Spanish Print הגונת לו אליהו כופתו הקב"ה רוצעו ותנא על Venice Print הוגנת לו אליהו כופתו והקדוש ברוך הוא רוצעו ותאנא על Vilna הוגנת לו אליהו כופתו והקב"ה רוצעו ותנא על

Vatican 11 16 כולן אליהו כותב והקב'ה חותם אוי לו למי Oxford 248 כלם אליהו כותב והק' חותם אוי לו למי Munich 95 כולם אליהו כותב והק"ב חותם אוי לו Spanish Print כלם אליהו כותב והקב"ה חותם אוי לו למי Venice Print כולם אליהו כותב והקדוש ברוך הוא חותם אוי לו Vilna כולם אליהו כותב והקב"ה חותם אוי לו

Vatican 11 17 שפוסל את זרעו ופוגם את משפחתו ולנושא אשה שאינה הוגנת Oxford 248 שפוסל את זרעו ופוגם את משפחתו ונושא אשה שאינה הוגנת Munich 95 לפוסל את זרעו ופוגם את משפחתו ולנוש' אש' שאינ' הוגנ' Spanish Print שפוסל את זרעו ולפוגם את משפחתו ולנושא אשה שאינה הוגנת Venice Print לפוסל את זרעו ולפוגם את משפחתו ולנושא אשה שאינה הוגנת Vilna לפוסל את זרעו ולפוגם את משפחתו ולנושא אשה שאינה הוגנת

Vatican 11 18 שכל הנושא אשה שאינה הוגנת לו אליהו כופתו והקב'ה Oxford 248 לו Munich 95 לו שכל הנוש' אש' שאינ' הוגנ' לו אליהו כופתו והק"ב Spanish Print לו וכל הנושא אשה שאינה הוגנת אליהו והקב"ה Venice Print לו אליהו כופתו והק"בה Vilna לו אליהו כופתו והקב"ה

280

Vatican 11 19 רוצעו וכל הפוסל פסול ואינו מדבר בשבח' לעולם ואמ' Oxford 248 וכל הפוסל פסול ואינו מדבר בשבחה של עולם וא' Munich 95 רוצעו וכל הפוסל פסול ואינו מדבר בשבח' לעולם וא' Spanish Print רוצעו וכל הפוסל פסול ואינו מדבר בשבח לעולם ואמ' Venice Print רוצעו וכל הפוסל פסול ואינו מדבר בשבחה לעולם ואמר Vilna רוצעו וכל הפוסל פסול ואינו מדבר בשבחא לעולם ואמר

Vatican 11 20 שמו' במומו פוסל ההוא גברא דהוה בנהרדע' ד Oxford 248 שמואל ובמומו פוסל ההוא גברא דשאיל לבי טבחא Munich 95 שמו' במומו פוסל ההוא גבר' דעל לבי טבח' Spanish Print שמואל במומו פוסל ההוא גברא דעאל לבי טבחא Venice Print שמואל במומו פוסל ההוא גברא דעל לבי מטבחיא Vilna שמואל במומו פוסל ההוא גברא דמנהרדעאדעל לבי מטבחיא

Vatican 11 21 איקלע לפומבדיתאקרב לגבי טבח' א'ל הב לי Oxford 248 בפומבדית' א' להו הבו לי Munich 95 (לפבמי) לפומבדית' א' להו הבו לי Spanish Print בפום בדיתא אמר להו הבו לי Venice Print בפומבדיתא אמר להו הב לי Vilna בפומבדיתא אמר להו הבו לי

Vatican 11 22 בישרא אמ' ל' עכיב עד דשקיל שמע' דרב יהוד' בר Oxford 248 בישר' אמרו לי' עכב עד דשקיל שמעיה דרב יהוד' בר Munich 95 בשר' אמרו לי' נטר עד דשקיל שמעי' דרב יהוד' בר Spanish Print בשרא אמרו ליה נטר עד דשקיל שמעיה דרב יהודה בר Venice Print בישרא אמר ליה נטר עד דשקיל לשמעיה דרב יהודה בר Vilna בישרא אמרו ליה נטר עד דשקיל לשמעיה דרב יהודה בר

Vatican 11 23 יחזקאל ברישא וניתיב לך אמ' להו מאן בר Oxford 248 יחזקאל בישר' וניתן לך(א) א"ל מאן יהודה בר Munich 95 יחזקאל בריש' וניתיב א' להו מאן יהוד' Spanish Print יחזקאל וניתיב לך אמר מאן רב יהודה Venice Print יחזקאל וניתיב לך אמר מאן יהודה בר Vilna יחזקאל וניתיב לך אמר מאן יהודה בר

Vatican 11 24 שויסקאל דנקיט מקמאי אזלו ואמרו ל' Oxford 248 שויסקיל דשקיל בישרא מקמאי אזול אמרו ליה Munich 95 שויסקאל דשקיל מקמאי אזלו אמרו ליה Spanish Print שביסקאל דשקיל מקמאי אזלו אמרו ליה Venice Print שויסקאל דקדים לי דשקל מן קמאי אזלו אמרו ליה Vilna שויסקאל דקדים לי דשקל מן קמאי אזלו אמרו ליה

281

Vatican 11 25 לרב יהוד' אפיק שיפוריה ושמתיה אתו ואמרו ל' רגיל דקרי Oxford 248 לרב יהודה שמתי אמ' ליה רגיל דקרו Munich 95 לרב יהוד' אפיק שיפורי ושמתי' אמרו ליה רגיל דקרי Spanish Print לרב יהודה אפיק שפורי ושמתיה אמרו ליה רגיל דקרי Venice Print לרב יהודה שמתיה אמרו רגיל דקרי Vilna לרב יהודה שמתיה אמרו רגיל דקרי

Vatican 11 26 ליה לאינשי עבדי אכריז עילויה דעבדא הוא אזל Oxford 248 לאינשי עבדיה אכריז עליה דעבדא הוא אזל ההוא Munich 95 לאינשי עבדי אכריז עלי' דעבד' הוא אזל איהו Spanish Print לאנשי עבדי אכריז עליה דעבדא הוא אזל ההוא גברא Venice Print אינשי עבדי אכריז עליה דעבדא הוא אזל ההוא Vilna אינשי עבדי אכריז עליה דעבדא הוא אזל ההוא

Vatican 11 27 אייתי אסיק דיסקא דזמינותא מבי רב נחמן Oxford 248 אזמניה לדינא לקמיה דרב נחמן Munich 95 ואייתי רירק' דזמינות' מבי רב נחמ' Spanish Print [...] אזמניה לדינא לקמיה דרב נחמן Venice Print אזמניה לדינ' לקמיה דרב נחמן אייתי פיתקא Vilna אזמניה לדינא לקמיה דרב נחמן אייתי פיתקא

Vatican 11 28 אזל רב יהוד' לקמיה דרב הונא א'ל איזי' Oxford 248 אזל רב יהודה לקמיה דרב הונא א"ל איזיל Munich 95 אזל רב יהוד' לקמי' דרב הונ' א"ל איזל Spanish Print אזל רב יהודה לקמיה דרב הונא אמ' ליה איזיל Venice Print דהזמנא אזל רב יהודה לקמיה דרב הונא אמר ליה איזיל Vilna דהזמנא אזל רב יהודה לקמיה דרב הונא אמר ליה איזיל

Vatican 11 29 או לא איזיל א'ל זיל לא מיבעי לך Oxford 248 או לא איזיל א"ל למיזל לא איבעי לך Munich 95 או לא איזל א"ל זיל לא מיבעי לך Spanish Print או לא אמר ליה ...מיזל] עי.. לך Venice Print או לא איזיל אמר ליה מיזל לא מיבעי לך Vilna או לא איזיל אמר ליה מיזל לא מיבעי לך

Vatican 11 30 למיזל אלא משום יקרא Oxford 248 למיזל זיל משום יקרא Munich 95 למיזל אל' משו' יקר' Spanish Print ל.. [(משום).. משום יקרא Venice Print למיזל משום דגברא רבא את אלא משום יקרא Vilna למיזל משום דגברא רבה את אלא משום יקרא

282

Vatican 11 31 דבי נשיאה קום אזל אשכחיה דהוה קא עביד מעקה Oxford 248 דבי נשיאה אשכחיה דקעביד מעקה Munich 95 דבי נשיא' אזל אשכחי' דקעביד מעקה Spanish Print דבי נשיאה קום זיל אזל אשכחיה דקא עביד מעקה Venice Print דבי נשיאה קום זיל אתא אשכחיה דקעביד מעקה Vilna דבי נשיאה קום זיל אתא אשכחיה דקעביד מעקה

Vatican 11 32 לגגיה א'ל לא סבר לה מר להא דרב Oxford 248 א"ל לא סבר לה מר להא דא' רב Munich 95 א"ל לא סבר לה מר להא דא' רב Spanish Print אמ' ליה לא סבר לה מר להא דאמ' רב Venice Print אמר ליה לא סבר לה מר להא דאמר רב Vilna אמר ליה לא סבר לה מר להא דאמר רב

Vatican 11 33 נהילאי בר אידי אמ' שמו' כיון שנתמנה אדם פרנס Oxford 248 נהילאי אמ' רב כיון שנתמנה אדם פרנס Munich 95 נהילאי בר אידי א' שמו' כיון שנתמנ' אד' פרנס Spanish Print ניהלאי בר אידי אמר שמואל כיון שנתמנה אדם פרנס Venice Print הונא בר אידי אמר שמואל כיון שנתמנה אדם פרנס Vilna הונא בר אידי אמר שמואל כיון שנתמנה אדם פרנס

Vatican 11 34 על הציבור אסור לעשות מלאכה בפני שלשה א'ל אנא Oxford 248 על הצבור אסור בעשיה מלאכה בפני שלשה א"ל Munich 95 על הצבור אסור בעשיי' מלאכ' בפני שלש' א"ל אנא Spanish Print על הציבור אסור בעשיית מלאכה בפני שלשה אמ' ליה Venice Print על הצבור אסור בעשיית מלאכה במפני שלשה אמר ליה Vilna על הצבור אסור בעשיית מלאכה בפני שלשה א"ל

Vatican 11 35 פורתא דגונדרנא קא עבידנא א'ל מי סאני מעקה Oxford 248 פורתא דגונדריזא קא עבידנא א"ל מי סני מעקה Munich 95 צורת' דגונדר' קעבידנ' א"ל מי סני מעק' Spanish Print פורתא דגונדריא הוא דקא עבידנא אמ' ליה מי שני מעקה Venice Print פורתא דגונדריא הוא דקא עבידנא אמר ליה מי סניא מעקה Vilna פורתא דגונדריתאהוא דקא עבידנא א"ל מי סניא מעקה

Vatican 11 36 דכת' באורייתא אינמי מחיצה דאמור רבנן א'ל לך ליתיב Oxford 248 דכת' באורייתא אי נמי מחיצה כדקריוה רבנ' א"ל ליתיב Munich 95 דכתי' באורית' אינמי מחייב' דרבנן א"ל ליתיב Spanish Print ['כדכתי] באוריתא או] מח.. [... אמר ליה ליתיב Venice Print דכתיב באוריית' או מחיצה דאמור רבנן אמר ליה יתיב Vilna דכתיב באורייתא או מחיצה דאמור רבנן א"ל יתיב

283

Vatican 11 37 מר באיקרופיטא מי סאני ספסל דאמור רבנן Oxford 248 מר על קופיטא א"ל מי סניא ספסל כדאמור רבנן Munich 95 מר בקרפיט' א"ל ומי סניא ספסל דאמרי רבנן Spanish Print מר על קרפיטא אמ' ליה מי סגיא אצטבא כדקריוה רבנן Venice Print מר אקרפיטא אמר ליה ומי סני ספסל דאמור רבנ' Vilna מר אקרפיטא א"ל ומי סני ספסל דאמור רבנן

Vatican 11 38 או איצטבא דאמרי אינשי א'ל ליכו'[ל] Oxford 248 או איצטבא כדקריוה אינשי א"ל ליכול Munich 95 או אצטב' דאמ' אינשי א"ל ליכול Spanish Print או] ספסל... אי נ..] מצטותא כדקריוה אינשי אמ' ליה אכיל Venice Print או אטבא דאמרי אינשי אמר ליה ליכול Vilna או איצטבא דאמרי אינשי א"ל ליכול

Vatican 11 39 מר איתרוגנא א'ל הכי אמ' שמו' כל דא' אתרוגנא Oxford 248 מר איתרונגא א"ל הכי אמ' שמואל מאן דא' אתרונגא Munich 95 מר אתרונגא א"ל הכי א' שמואל כל האו' אתרונג' Spanish Print מר אטרונגא אמר ליה הכי אמ' שמואל כל דאמ' אטרוגנא Venice Print מר איתרונגא אמר ליה הכי אמר שמו' כל האומר אתרונגא Vilna מר אתרונגא אמר ליה הכי אמר שמואל כל האומר אתרונגא

Vatican 11 40 תילתא ברמות רוחא או אתרוג כדקריוה רבנן Oxford 248 תלתא בדמות רוחא אית ליה או אתרוג כדקריוה רבנן Munich 95 תילת' ברמו' רוח' אית ליה אי כדקאמרי רבנן Spanish Print תלתא כדמות רוחא אית ביה לימא או אתרוג כדקריוה רבנן Venice Print תילתא ברמות רוחא או אתרוג כדקריוה רבנן Vilna תילתא ברמות רוחא או אתרוג כדקריוה רבנן

Vatican 11 41 או אתרוגא כדאמרי אינשי א'ל לישתי מר Oxford 248 אתרוגא כדאמרי אינשי א"ל לישתי מר Munich 95 אתו איתרוג אי כדאמ' אינשי אתרוגא א"ל לישתי מר Spanish Print או אטרוגא כדקריוה אינשי אמר ליה שאתי מר Venice Print או אתרוגא דאמרי אינשי אמר ליה לישתי מר Vilna או אתרוגא דאמרי אינשי אמר ליה לישתי מר

Vatican 11 42 אגבגא א'ל מי סאני איספרגוס דאמור רבנן או Oxford 248 אנבג א"ל מי סני מר איספרגיס כדקריוה רבנן או Munich 95 אנכגא אל' ומי סני אספרגיס דאמור רבנן או Spanish Print אנסג אמר ליה מי סגי אספרגוס כדקריוה רבנן או Venice Print אנבג אמר ליה מי סני איספרגוס דקריוה רבנן או Vilna אנבגא אמר ליה מי סני איספרגוס דקריוה רבנן או

284

Vatican 11 43 אנ(קפ)[פקדאמרי אינשי א'ל תייתי דונג Oxford 248 אנפקא כדאמרי אינשי א"ל תיתי דונג Munich 95 אנפק דאמ' אינשי א"ל תיתי דונג Spanish Print אנפק כדקריוה אינשי אמ' ליה סבר לה מר תיתי דונג Venice Print אנפק' דאמרי אינשי אמר ליה תיתי דונג Vilna אנפק דאמרי אינשי אמר ליה תיתי דונג

Vatican 11 44 ותשקי' א'ל הכי אמ' שמואל אין משתמשין באשה Oxford 248 תשקיין א"ל הכי א' שמואל אין משתמשין באשה א"ל Munich 95 ותשקינן א"ל הכי א' שמואל אין משתמשין באש' Spanish Print ותשקינן אמ' ליה הכי אמ' שמואל אין משתמשין באשה אמ' Venice Print תשקינן אמר ליה הכי אמר שמו' אין משתמשיםבאשה Vilna תשקינן אמר ליה הכי אמר שמואל אין משתמשיםבאשה

Vatican 11 45 (קטנה) הני] מילי גדולה הא קטנה היא] א'ל Oxford 248 קטנה היא א"ל Munich 95 קטנ' היא א"ל Spanish Print ליה קטנה היא אמ' ליה Venice Print קטנה היא Vilna קטנה היא

Vatican 11 46 בפירוש אמ' שמו' בין גדולה בין Oxford 248 בפירוש א' שמואל אין משתמשין באשה כלל בין גדולה בין Munich 95 בפירו' א' שמו' בין גדול' בין Spanish Print בפירוש אמ' שמואל בין גדולה ובין Venice Print בפירוש אמר שמואל אין משתמשיםבאשה כלל בין גדולה בין Vilna בפירוש אמר שמואל אין משתמשיםבאשה כלל בין גדולה בין

Vatican 11 47 קטנה א'ל משדר מר שלמא (ליתלא) לילתא] Oxford 248 קטנה נשדר לה מר שלמא לילתא Munich 95 קטנ' א"ל לא לישדר ליה מר שלמ' לילתה Spanish Print קטנה אמ' ליה נשדר לה מר שלמא לילתא Venice Print קטנה נשדר ליה מר שלמא לילתא Vilna קטנה נשדר ליה מר שלמא לילתא

Vatican 11 48 א'ל הכא אמר שמואל קול באשה ערוה א'ל Oxford 248 א"ל הכי אמ' שמואל קול באשה ערוה Munich 95 א"ל Spanish Print אמ' ליה הכי אמ' שמואל קול באשה ערוה אמ' ליה Venice Print אמר ליה הכי אמר שמואל קול באשה ערוה Vilna א"ל הכי אמר שמואל קול באשה ערוה

285

Vatican 11 49 על ידי שליח [(הכי) הכי אמ' Oxford 248 נשדר לה ע"י שליח א"ל Munich 95 הכי א' Spanish Print על ידי שליח [...] הכי אמ' Venice Print איפשר על ידי שליח אמר ליה הכי אמר Vilna אפשר ע"י שליח א"ל הכי אמר

Vatican 11 50 שמו' אין שואלין בשלום [..אש] אש(')[ה] Oxford 248 Munich 95 שמו' אין שואלין בשלו' אש' א"ל לישדר לה ע"י Spanish Print שמואל אין שואלין בשלום אשה Venice Print שמואל אין שואלין בשלום אשה Vilna שמואל אין שואלין בשלום אשה

Vatican 11 51 על ידי בעל' א'ל הכי אמ' שמו' Oxford 248 הכי אמ' שמואל Munich 95 שליח הכי א' שמו' Spanish Print על ידי בעלה מאי אמ' ליה הכי אמ' שמואל Venice Print על ידי בעלה אמר ליה הכי אמר שמואל Vilna על ידי בעלה אמר ליה הכי אמר שמואל

Vatican 11 52 אין שואלין בשלום אשה כלל שלחה ל' Oxford 248 אין שואלין בשלום אשה כלל ואפילו ע"י של[י]ח שלחא ליה Munich 95 אין שואלין בשלו' אש' כלל שלח' ליה Spanish Print אין שואלין בשלום אשה כלל שלחה ליה Venice Print אין שואלין בשלום אשה כלל שלחה ליה Vilna אין שואלין בשלום אשה כלל שלחה ליה

Vatican 11 53 ילתא שרי ליה תיגריה כי היכי דלא לישוייך כשאר Oxford 248 ילתא שרי ליה (ב) תיגריה דלא נישוייך כשאר Munich 95 ילתא שרי לי תיגרי' דלא לשוייך כשאר Spanish Print דביתהו שדי ליה תיגרי דלא נשויך כשאר Venice Print דביתהו שרי לי' תגרי' דלא נישוויך כשאר Vilna דביתהו שרי ליה תגריה דלא נישוויך כשאר

Vatican 11 54 אינשי א'ל מאי שייטי' דמר (א'ל) הכא[ל] א'ל Oxford 248 אינשי אמ' ליה מאי שיאטיה דמר הכא Munich 95 אינשי א"ל מאי שייטי' דמר הכ' א"ל Spanish Print אינשי [א"ל] מאי שייטי דמר הכא אמ' Venice Print עם הארץ אמ' לי מאי שיאטיה דמר הכא אמר Vilna עם הארץ א"ל מאי שיאטיה דמר הכא אמר

286

Vatican 11 55 מזמיננא לדינא קמיה דמר Oxford 248 לדינא קמי' דמר Munich 95 דיסק' דזמינות' שדי מר אבתראי Spanish Print ליה לדינא לקמיה דמר Venice Print ליה טסקא דהזמנות' שדר מר אבתראי Vilna ליה טסקא דהזמנותא שדר מר אבתראי

Vatican 11 56 א'ל שו(י)תיה דמר לא ידענא Oxford 248 מזמנינן לדינא Munich 95 א"ל השת' שויתי' דמר לא גמירנ' Spanish Print אמ' ליה השתא שותיה דמר לא גמרינן Venice Print אמר ליה השתא שותא דמר לא גמירנא Vilna אמר ליה השתא שותא דמר לא גמירנא

Vatican 11 57 לדינא מזמיננא לי' אפיק דיסק דזימנותא מ?בי?] Oxford 248 אפיק דיסקא דזמינתיה Munich 95 דיסק' דזמינות' אפיק דיסק' דזמינות' Spanish Print מזמיננא ליה למר Venice Print טסקא דהזמנותא משדרנ' למר אפיק דיסקא דהיזמנותאמבי Vilna טסקא דהזמנותא משדרנא למר אפיק דיסקא דהזמנותא מבי

Vatican 11 58 חזייה] ואחוי ליה א'ל Oxford 248 ואחוי ליה א"ל Munich 95 אחוי ליה א"ל Spanish Print Venice Print חדיה ואחזי לה אמר ליה הא גברא והא דסקא אמ' Vilna חדיה ואחזי ליה אמר ליה הא גברא והא דסקא אמר

Vatican 11 59 הואיל ואתא מר הכא[ל] לישתעי מר מילי Oxford 248 הואיל ואתא מר להכא נישתעי מילי Munich 95 הואיל ואת' מר הכ' לישתעי מר מילי Spanish Print הואיל ואתא מר נשמעיה לשותיה Venice Print ליה הואיל ואת' מר להכא לישתעי מיליה Vilna ליה הואיל ואתא מר להכא לישתעי מיליה

Vatican 11 60 כי היכי דלא לימרו קא מחנפי רבנן להדרי Oxford 248 כי היכי דלא לימדו מחנפי רבנן אהדדי א"ל Munich 95 כי היכי דלא לימרו קמחנפי רבנן אהדדי מאי Spanish Print דלא נימרו קא מחנפי רבנן להדדי מאי טעמא Venice Print כי היכי דלא לימרו מחנפי רבנן אהדדי אמר ליה Vilna כי היכי דלא לימרו מחנפי רבנן אהדדי אמר ליה

287

Vatican 11 61 מאי טע' שמתי' מר לההוא גברא ציער שליחא Oxford 248 מ"ט שמית מר להאי גברא א"ל ציער שליחא Munich 95 טע' שמית מר להאי גבר' א"ל ציער שליח' Spanish Print שמתיה מר [...] משום דציער לשלוחא Venice Print מאי טעמא שמתיה מר לההוא גברא ציער שליחא Vilna מאי טעמא שמתיה מר לההוא גברא ציער שליחא

Vatican 11 62 דרבנן Oxford 248 דרבנן Munich 95 דרבנן וחייב מלקו' Spanish Print דרבנן ונגדיה מר דרב מנגיד על מאן דמצער שליחא דרבנן Venice Print דרבנ' Vilna דרבנן ונגדיה מר דרב מנגיד על מאן דמצער שלוחא דרבנן

Vatican 11 63 ומאי טע' אכר?[]?זת עילויה Oxford 248 א"ל מאי קרית להאי Munich 95 ועדיפ' מיני' עבדי ליה מאי טע' אכריז עליה Spanish Print דעדיף מיניה עבדי ליה מאי טעמ' קרי ליה מר להא Venice Print מאי טעמ' אכריז מר עליה Vilna דעדיף מיניה עבדי ליה מאי טעמא אכריז מר עליה

Vatican 11 64 דעבדא הוא אמ' ל' דרגיל דקרי לאינשי עבדי ותניא Oxford 248 גברא עבדא א"ל דרגיל דקרי לאנשי עבדי ותני' Munich 95 דעבדי' הוא דרגיל דקרי לאינשי עבדי ותני' Spanish Print גברא עבדא אמ' ליה דרגיל דקרי אינשי עבדי דתניא Venice Print דעבדא הוא אמר ליה דרגיל דקרי אינשי עבדי ותניא Vilna דעבדא הוא אמר ליה דרגיל דקרי אינשי עבדי ותני

Vatican 11 65 כל הפוסל פסול ואי' מדבר בשבחה ?לעולם[ש]? ואמ' שמו' Oxford 248 כל הפוסל פסול ואינו מדבר בשבחה של עולם ואמ' שמואל Munich 95 כל הפוסל פסול ואינו מדבר בשבח' לעול' וא' שמו' Spanish Print כל הפוסל פסול ואינו מדבר בשבח לעולם ואמר שמואל Venice Print כל הפוסל פסול ואינו מדבר בשבח' לעולם ואמ' שמואל Vilna כל הפוסל פסול ואינו מדבר בשבחא לעולם ואמר שמואל

Vatican 11 66 במומו פוסל אימר דאמ' שמואל לאחזוקי לאכרוזי Oxford 248 ובמומו פוסל אימר דא' שמואל למיחש לי' לאכרוזי Munich 95 במומו פוסל א"ל אימר דא' שמו' למיחש ליה לאכרוזי Spanish Print במומו פוסל אמר ליה אימור דאמר שמואל למיחש ליה לאכרוזי Venice Print במומו פוסל אימר דאמר שמואל למיחש ליה לאכרוזי Vilna במומו פוסל אימר דאמר שמואל למיחש ליה לאכרוזי

288

Vatican 11 67 מי אמ' א'ל דעדיפא עבידנא אדהכי קם Oxford 248 עליה מי א' א"ל Munich 95 עלי מי א' אדהכי קם Spanish Print ליה מי אמר כי קאי Venice Print עליה מי אמר אדהכי והכי אתא ההוא Vilna עליה מי אמר אדהכי והכי אתא) ההוא

Vatican 11 68 בעל דיני' א'ל Oxford 248 Munich 95 בעל דיני' א' Spanish Print אמר ליה Venice Print בר דיני' מנהרדעי אמ' ליה ההוא בר נהרדעא לרב יהודה Vilna בר דיניה מנהרדעי) א"ל ההוא בר דיניה לרב יהודה

Vatican 11 69 גברא דאתי Oxford 248 לדידי קרית לי עבדא דאתינא מבית חשמונאי מלכא Munich 95 גבר' דקאתי Spanish Print לדידי קרית ליה עבדא דאתינ' מבית חשמונאי מלכא Venice Print לדידי קרית לי עבדא דאתינא מבית חשמונאי מלכא Vilna לדידי קרית לי עבדא דאתינא מבית חשמונאי מלכא

Vatican 11 70 מבי חשמונאי [מלכא] עבדא קרית ל' א'ל הכי אמ' Oxford 248 הכי א' Munich 95 מדבית חשמונאי מלכ' עבד' קרי' ליה א"ל הכי א' Spanish Print אמ' ליה הכי אמ' Venice Print אמר ליה הכי אמר Vilna אמר ליה הכי אמר

Vatican 11 71 שמו' כל דא' מבי חשמו' קאתינא עבדא Oxford 248 שמואל כל א' דאמ' מבית חשמונאי אנא עבדא Munich 95 שמו' כל מאן דא' מדבי' חשמונאי קאתינ' עבד' Spanish Print שמואל מאן דאמר מבית חשמונאי מלכא קא אתינא עבדא Venice Print שמויאל כל דאמר מדבית חשמונאי קאתינא עבדא Vilna שמואל כל דאמר מדבית חשמונאי קאתינא עבדא

Vatican 11 72 הוא א'ל לא סבר לה מר להא דר' Oxford 248 הוא א"ל לא סבר לה מר להא דא"ר Munich 95 הוא א"ל ולא סבר לה מר להא דא' Spanish Print הוא אמר ליה לא סבר לה מר להא דאמר Venice Print הוא אמר ליה לא סבר לה מר להא דאמר רבי Vilna הוא א"ל לא סבר לה מר להא דא"ר

289

Vatican 11 73 אבא אמ' רב הונא כל תלמיד חכם שמורה Oxford 248 אבא א' רב כל תלמיד חכם שמורה Munich 95 רבסי בר רב הונ' כל תלמיד חכ' שמור' Spanish Print רבא אמר רב הונא אמר רב כל תלמיד חכם שמורה Venice Print אבא אמר רב הונא אמר רב כל תלמי' חכם שמורה Vilna אבא אמר רב הונא אמר רב כל ת"ח שמורה

Vatican 11 74 הלכה ובא אם קוד' מעשה אמרה שומעין לו ואם לאו Oxford 248 הלכה אם קודם מעשה אמרה שומעין לו ואם לאו Munich 95 הלכ' ובא אם קוד' מעש' אמר' שומעין לו ואם לאו Spanish Print הלכה ובא אם קודם מעשה אמרה שומעין לו ואם לאו Venice Print הלכה ובא אם קודם מעשה אמר' שומעי' לו ואם לאו Vilna הלכה ובא אם קודם מעשה אמרה שומעין לו ואם לאו

Vatican 11 75 אין שומ' לו אמ' ל' האיכא רב מתנה דקאי Oxford 248 אין שומעין לו א"ל הא איכא רב מתנא דקאי Munich 95 אין שומעין לו א"ל האיכ' רב מתנ' דקאי Spanish Print אין שומעין לו אמ' ליה איכא רב מתנה דקאי Venice Print אין שומעין לו אמר ליה הא איכא רב מתנה דקאי Vilna אין שומעין לו אמר ליה הא איכא רב מתנה דקאי

Vatican 11 76 כוותי רב מתנה הוה ליה תליסרי שני דלא חזיא Oxford 248 כוותי רב מתנא לא חזיא Munich 95 כותי רב מתנ' לא חזיא ליה Spanish Print כותיה רב מתנה לא חזיא ליה Venice Print כוותי רב מתנה לא חזייה Vilna כוותי רב מתנה לא חזייה

Vatican 11 77 נהרדעא ההוא יומא איקלע להתם א'ל Oxford 248 נהרדעא תליסר שני ההוא יומא אתא א"ל Munich 95 נהרדע' תליסר שנין ההו' יומ' איקלע להת' את' א"ל Spanish Print נהרדעא תליסר שני ההוא יומא אחא אמר Venice Print לנהרדעא תלי סר' שני ההוא יומא אתא אמר Vilna לנהרדעא תליסר שני ההוא יומא אתא אמר

Vatican 11 78 דכיר מר לההיא מילתא דאמ' שמו' בי הוה Oxford 248 דכיר מר מאי א' שמואל כי Munich 95 דכיר מר מאי א' שמו' כי Spanish Print ליה דכיר מר מאי אמר שמואל כי Venice Print ליה דכיר מר מאי אמר שמואל כי Vilna ליה דכיר מר מאי אמר שמואל כי

290

Vatican 11 79 [קאי] כרעיה חדא אגודא וכרעיה חדא Oxford 248 קאי כרעי' חדא על גודא וחד כרעא על Munich 95 קאי חד' כרעי' אגיד' וחד' כרעי' Spanish Print קאי חדא כרעיה על גודא וחדא כרעיה א"ל Venice Print קאי חדא כרעא אגודא וחדא כרעא Vilna קאי חדא כרעא אגודא וחדא כרעא

Vatican 11 80 אמברא א'ל הכי אמ' שמו' כל מאן דא' מבית Oxford 248 מברא א"ל הכי א' שמו' כל דא' מבית Munich 95 אמבר' א"ל הכי א' שמו' כל מ"ד מבי' Spanish Print אמברא הכי אמ' שמואל כל מאן דאמ' מדבית Venice Print במברא א' ליה הכי א' שמואל כל דאמ' מדבי' Vilna במברא א"ל הכי אמר שמואל כל דאמר מדבית

Vatican 11 81 חשמו' מלכא אנא עבדא הוא Oxford 248 חשמונאי מלכ' קאתינא עבדא הוא דלא אשתייר מינייהו דל' Munich 95 חשמונאי מלכ' קאתינ' עבד' הוא Spanish Print חשמונאי מלכ' קא אתינא עבדא הוא Venice Print חשמונאי מלכא קאתינא עבדא הוא דלא Vilna חשמונאי מלכא קאתינא עבדא הוא דלא

Vatican 11 82 Oxford 248 אשתייר מינייהו אלא ההיא רבית' דסליק לאיגר' ורמי' קלא Munich 95 Spanish Print Venice Print אישתייור מינייהו אלא ההוא רביתא דסלקא לאיגרא ורמיא קלא ואמריה Vilna אישתיור מינייהו אלא ההיא רביתא דסלקא לאיגרא ורמיא קלא ואמרה

Vatican 11 83 Oxford 248 כל דא' מבית חשמונאי אנא עבדא הוא דנפלה מאיגר' לארע' Munich 95 Spanish Print Venice Print כל דאמ' מבית חשמונאי אנ' עבדא הוא נפלה מאיגרא Vilna כל דאמר מבית חשמונאי אנא עבדא הוא נפלה מאיגרא

Vatican 11 84 אכריז עליה דעבד' הוא ההוא יומא איקרעו כמה כתובות Oxford 248 ומתה אמרו עלי' דעבד' הוא איקרען כמ' כתובת' Munich 95 אכריז עלי' דעבד' הוא ההו' יומ' איקרען כמ' כתוב' Spanish Print אכריז עליה דעבדא הוא איקרען רמה כתובתא Venice Print ומית אכרוז עליה דעבדא הוא ההוא יומא אקרען כמה כתובת' Vilna ומיתה אכרוז עליה דעבדא הוא ההוא יומא אקרען כמה כתובתא

291

Vatican 11 85 בנהרדעא כי קא נפיק נפוק בתריה למירגמיה א'ל Oxford 248 בנהרדע' כי קא נפיק נפקו כולי עלמ' אבתרי' למרגמיה א' Munich 95 בנהרדע' כי קנפיק נפקי אבתריה למרגמי' א' Spanish Print בנהרדעא כי קא נפיק נפקו בתריה למרגמיה אמר Venice Print בנהרדעא כי קא נפיק נפקי אבתריה למירגמיה אמר Vilna בנהרדעא כי קא נפיק נפקי אבתריה למירגמיה אמר

Vatican 11 86 שתיקיתו שתיקיתו ואי לא מגלינא לכו דאמ' Oxford 248 להן אי שתקיתו שתקיתו ואי לא מגלינא דא' Munich 95 להו אי שתקיתו שתקיתו ואי לא מגלינ' דא' Spanish Print להו אי שתקיתו שתקיתו ואי לא מגלינא דאמ' Venice Print להו אי שתיקו שתיקו ואי לא מגלינא עלייכו הא דאמ' Vilna להו אי שתיקו שתיקו ואי לא מגלינא עלייכו הא דאמר

Vatican 11 87 שמו' תרתי זרעייתא הוה בנהרדעא חדא מקרייא דבי יונה וחדא Oxford 248 שמואל תרתי זרעיית' איכ' בנהרדעא חדא מיקריא דבני יונה וחדא Munich 95 שמו' תרתי זרעיית' איכ' בנהרדע' חד' מיקרי דבי יונה וחד' Spanish Print שמואל תרתי זרעייתא איכא בנהרדעי' חדא מקריא דבי יונה וחדא Venice Print שמואל תרתי זרעייתא איכא בנהרדעא חדא מיקריא דבי יונא וחד' Vilna שמואל תרתי זרעייתא איכא בנהרדעא חדא מיקריא דבי יונה וחדא

Vatican 11 88 מיקריא דבי עורבתי וסימ' טמא טמא Oxford 248 מקריא דבני ערבתיה וסימניך טמ' טמא Munich 95 מיקרי דבי עורב וסימניך טמ' טמ' Spanish Print מקריא דבי עורבתיה חדא כשרה וחדא פסולה וסמניך טמא טהור Venice Print מיקריא דבי עורבתי וסימניך טמא טמא Vilna מיקריא דבי עורבתי וסימניך טמא טמא

Vatican 11 89 טהור טהור שדו ריגמייהו מידייהו עד דסלי' אבקא בנהר Oxford 248 וטהור טהור שדיוה לההוא רגמייהו בידייהו Munich 95 טהור טהו' שדו ריגמייהו בנהר Spanish Print וטהור טהור שדיוה לההוא ריגמא מידיהו Venice Print טהור טהו' שדיוה לההוא ריגמ' מידיהו Vilna טהור טהור שדיוה לההוא ריגמא מידייהו

Vatican 11 90 מלכא וקם איטמא בנהר מלכא אכריז רב יהוד' בפום בדיתא Oxford 248 וקם אטמא בנהר מלכא מכריז רב יהודה בפובדיתא Munich 95 מלכ' וקם איטמ' בנהר מלכא מכריז רב נחמן בשכנציב Spanish Print קא איטמא בנהר מלכא מכריז רב יהודה בפום בדיתא Venice Print וקם אטמא בנה' מלכא מכריז רב יהודה בפומבדיתא Vilna וקם אטמא בנהר מלכא מכריז רב יהודה בפומבדיתא

292

Vatican 11 91 אדא ויהונתן עב' יהוד' בר פפא ממזירא מכריז רב Oxford 248 אדא ויונת' עבדי יהודה בר פפא ממזירא Munich 95 עזא עיה ויונתן עבדי ויצח' בן פפ' ממזיר' Spanish Print עדא ויונתן עבדי יהוד' בן פפא ממזרא מכריז רב Venice Print אדא ויונתן עבדי יהוד' בר פפא ממזירא Vilna אדא ויונתן עבדי יהודה בר פפא ממזירא

Vatican 11 92 נחמן בשכנסיב עדא עוה ויהונתן עבדי יצחק בר פפא ממזירא Oxford 248 Munich 95 Spanish Print נחמן בשכנציב עדא יעדא ויהונתן עבדי בן פפא ממזרא Venice Print Vilna

Vatican 11 93 מכי) חזייה) בטי] בר] בר טוביה ברמות רוחיה Oxford 248 בר בטו בר טוביה ברמות רוחיה Munich 95 מכריז רבא במחוזא באטי בר טובי' ברמו' רוחי' Spanish Print בטי בר' טובי ברמות רוחא Venice Print בטי בר טוביה ברמו' רוחא Vilna בטי בר טוביה ברמות רוחא

Vatican 11 94 לא שקיל גיטא דחירות' Oxford 248 לא שקיל גיטא דחירותא מכריז רב נחמ' בשכנציב Munich 95 לא שקיל גיט' דחירות' מכריז רב יהוד' בנהרדע' Spanish Print דאית ביה לא שקל גיטא דחירותא Venice Print לא שקיל גיטא דחירותא Vilna לא שקיל גיטא דחירותא

Vatican 11 95 Oxford 248 אד' ויונתן עבדי יצחק בר פפא ממזירא Munich 95 יונתן עבד ויצחק בר פפ' ממזיר' Spanish Print Venice Print Vilna

293

Appendix O: Synopsis of Ketubot 46a (Chapter Five)

294

Munich 95 1 תניא כיצד הוצאת שם רע בא לב"ד ואמ' St. Petersberg ד?תנ?יא כ[י]צד הוצאת שם ר()[ע] בא לבית דין ואמ' Vatican 113 דתניא כיצד הוצאת שם רע בא לבית דין ואמ' Vatican 130 דתניא כיצד הוצאת שם רע בא לבית דין ואמ' Vatican 487 דתניא כאיזה [צד] הוצאת שם רע בא לבית דין ואמ' Soncino (1488) דתניא כיצד הוצאת שם רע בא לבית דין ואמ' Vilna דתניא כיצד הוצאת שם רע בא לבית דין ואמר Munich 95 2 לא מצאתי לבתך בתולים אם יש עדים שזינתה תחתיו St. Petersberg פל' לא מצאתי לבתו בתולים אם יש עדים שזינתה תחתיו Vatican 113 פל' לא מצאתי לבתך בתולי' אם יש עדים שזינתה תחתיו Vatican 130 לא מצאתי לבתך בתול' (אם) יש עדים שזינתה תחתיו Vatican 487 פלוני לא מצאתי לבתך בתולים אם יש עדים שזינתה תחתיו Soncino (1488) פלוני לא מצאתי לבתו בתולי' אם יש עדים שזינתה תחתיו Vilna פלוני לא מצאתי לבתך בתולים אם יש עדים שזינתה תחתיו Munich 95 3 בסקילה) זינתה מעיקרא) יש לה כתובה מנה יש לה כתובה St. Petersberg יש לה כתובה מנה יש לה כתובה Vatican 113 יש לה כתובה מנה Vatican 130 יש לה כתובה מנה Vatican 487 יש לה כתובה מנה יש לה כתובה Soncino (1488) יש לה כתובה מנה Vilna יש לה כתובה מנה

295

Munich 95 4 בת St. Petersberg מנה בת Vatican 113 בת Vatican 130 זינתה תחתיו בת Vatican 487 מנה בת Soncino (1488) אם יש עדי' שזנת' תחתיו יש לה כתוב' מנ' בת שזינת Vilna אם יש עדים ה תחתיו יש לה כתובה מנה בת Munich 95 5 סקילה היא הכי' קאמ' אם יש עדים שזינתה תחתיו St. Petersberg סקילה היא הכי קאמ' אם יש עדים שזינתה תחתיו Vatican 113 סקילה היא הכי קא' אם יש עדים שזינתה תחתיו Vatican 130 סקילה היא הכי קא' אם יש עדים שזינתה תחתיו Vatican 487 סקילה היא הכי קא אמ' אם יש עדים שזינתה תחתיו Soncino (1488) סקילה היא הכי קאמ' אם יש עדים שזינתה תחתיו Vilna סקילה היא הכי קאמר אם יש עדים שזינתה תחתיו Munich 95 6 בסקילה זינתה מעיקרא יש לה כתובה מנה נמצא St. Petersberg בסקילה זינתה מעיקרא יש לה כתובה מנה נמצא שם רע Vatican 113 בסקילה זינתה מעיקרה יש לה כתובה מנה נמצא (שם) Vatican 130 בסקילה זינתה מעיקרא יש לה כתובה מנה נמצא שם רע Vatican 487 בסקילה זינתה מעיקרא יש לה כתובה מנה נמצא שם רע Soncino (1488) בסקילה זינתה מעיקרא יש לה כתוב' מנה נמצ' ששם רע Vilna בסקילה זינתה מעיקרא יש לה כתובה מנה נמצא ששם רע

296

Munich 95 7 שאינו שם רע לוקה ונותן מאה סלע בין בעל St. Petersberg שאינו שם רע הוא לוקה ונותן מאה סלע בין בעל Vatican 113 שאינו שם רע הוא לוקה ונותן מאה סלע בין בעל Vatican 130 שאינו שם רע לוקה ונותן מאה סלע בין בעל Vatican 487 שאינו שם רע לוקה ונותן מאה סלע בין בעל Soncino (1488) אינו שם רע הוא לוקה ונותן מאה סלע בין בעל Vilna אינו שם רע הוא לוקה ונותן מאה סלע בין בעל Munich 95 8 בין לא בעל ר' אליעזר בן יעקב או' לא נאמרו St. Petersberg ובין שלא בעל ר' אליעזר בן יעקב אומ' לא נאמרו Vatican 113 בין לא בעל ר' אלעז' בן יעקב או' לא נאמרו Vatican 130 ובין לא בעל ר' אליעזר בן יעקב או' לא נאמרו Vatican 487 ובין לא בעל ר' אליעז' בן יעקב אומ' לא נאמרו Soncino (1488) ובין לא בעל ר' אליעז' בן יעקב אומ' לא נאמרו Vilna ובין לא בעל רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר לא נאמרו בשבע Munich 95 9 דברי' הללו אלא ל .St בשבע ו?<..> Petersberg דברים הללו אלא ל בשלמ' ר' אליעזר בן יעקב ? Vatican בשבע 113 דברים אילו אלא ל בשלמ' לר' אליעז' בן יעקב היינו Vatican 130 דברים הללו אלא כשבעל בשל' לר' אליעזר בן יעקב היינו Vatican בשבע 487 דברים הללו אלא ל בשלמא לר' אליע' בן יעקב היינו Soncino (1488) דברי' הללו אלא כשבעל בשלמ' לר' אליעזר בן יעקב היינו Vilna דברים הללו אלא כשבעל בשלמא לרבי אליעזר בן יעקב היינו

297

Munich 95 10 St. Petersberg דכת' ואבוא' אליה ואקרב אליה אלא לרבנן מאי ואבוא[ה] אליה Vatican 113 דכת' ובא אליה ואקרב אליה אלא לרבנן מאי ובא אליה Vatican 130 דכת' ובא אליה ואקרב אליה אלא לרבנן מאי ואקרב אליה Vatican 487 דכת' ובא אליה ואקרב אליה אלא לרבננן מאי ובא אליה Soncino (1488) דכת' ואבא אליה ואקרב אליה אלא לרבנן מאי ואבא אליה Vilna דכתיב ובא אליה ואקרב אליה אלא לרבנן מאי ובא אליה Munich 11 95 בשלמ' לר' St. Petersberg ואקרב אליה ואבוא[ה] ?אל?יה בעלילות ואקרב אליה בדברים בשלמ' ר' Vatican 113 ואקרב אליה ובא אליה בעלילות ואקרב אליה בדברים בשלמ' לר' Vatican 130 ובא אלי' ובא אליה בעלילות ואקרב אליה בדברים בשל' לר' Vatican 487 ואקרב אליה ובא אליה בעלילות ואקרב אליה בדברים בשלמא לר' Soncino (1488) ואקרב אליה ואבא אליה בעלילו' ואקרב אלי' בדברי' בשלמ' לר' Vilna ואקרב אליה ובא אליה בעלילות ואקרב אליה בדברים בשלמא לרבי Munich 12 95 אליעזר בן יעקב היינו דכתי' לא מצאתי לבתך בתולים אלא St. Petersberg אליעזר בן יעקב היינו דכת' ולא מצאתי לבתך בתולים אלא Vatican 113 אליע' בן יעקב הינו דכת' לא מצ' לבת' בתולי' אלא Vatican 130 אליע' בן יעקב היינו דכת' לא מצאתי לבתך בתולים אלא Vatican 487 אליעז' בן יעקב היינו דכת' לא מצאתי לבתך בתולים אלא Soncino (1488) אליעז' בן יעקב היינו דכת' ולא מצאתי לבתך בתולי' אלא Vilna אליעזר בן יעקב היינו דכתיב לא מצאתי לבתך בתולים אלא

298

Munich 13 95 לרבנן מאי לא מצאתי לבתך בתולים לא מצאתי St. Petersberg לרבנן מאי ולא מצאתי לבתך בתולים ולא מצאתי לבתך Vatican 113 לרבנן (?א?) מאי לא מצאתי לבתך בתולי' לא מצא' לבתך Vatican 130 לרבנן מאי לא מצאתי לבתך בתולים לא מצאתי Vatican 487 לרבנן מאי לא מצאתי לבתך בתולים Soncino (1488) לרבנ' מאי לא מצאתי לבתך בתולי' לא מצאתי לבתך Vilna לרבנן מאי לא מצאתי לבתך בתולים לא מצאתי לבתך Munich 14 95 כשירי בתולים בשלמ' לר' אליעזר בן יעקב היינו דכתי' ואלה St. Petersberg כשרי בתולים בשלמ' ר' אליעזר בן יעקב היינו דכת' ואלה Vatican 113 כשרי בתולים בשלמ' לר' אליע' בן יעקב הינו דכת' ואלה Vatican 130 כשרי בתולים בשל' לר' אליעזר בן יעקב היינו דכת' ואלה Vatican 487 כשרי בתולים בשלמא לר' אליע' בן יעקב היינו דכת' ואלה Soncino (1488) כשרי בתולים בשלמ' לר' אליעזר בן יעקב היינו דכת' ואלה Vilna כשרי בתולים בשלמא לרבי אליעזר בן יעקב היינו דכתיב ואלה Munich 15 95 בתולי בתי ואלה) כשירי בתולי) אלא לרבנן מאי ואלה בתולי St. Petersberg בתולי בתי אלא לרבנן מאי ואלה בתולי Vatican 113 בתולי בתי אלא לרבנן מאי ואלה בתולי Vatican 130 בתולי בתי אלא לרבנן מאי ואלה בתולי Vatican 487 בתולי בתי אלא לרבנן מאי ואלה בתולי Soncino (1488) בתולי בתי אלא לרבנן מאי ואלה בתולי Vilna בתולי בתי אלא לרבנן מאי ואלה בתולי

299

Munich 16 95 בתי ואלו כשירי בתולי בתי בשלמ' לר' אליעזר בן יעקב St. Petersber g בתי אלה כשרי בתולי בתי בשלמ' [ל]ר' אליעזר בן יעקב Vatican 113 בתי אלא כשרי בתולי בתי בשלמ' לר' אליעז' בן יעקב Vatican אל(א)[ה 130 בתי ] כשרי בתולי בתי בשל' לר' אליעז' בן יעקב Vatican 487 בתי ואלה כשרי בתולי בתי בשלמא לר' אליעזר בן יעקב Soncino (1488) בתי ואלה בשרי בתולי בתי בשלמ' לר' אליעזר בן יעקב Vilna בתי ואלה כשרי בתולי בתי בשלמא לר"א בן יעקב Munich 17 95 היינו דכתי' ופרשו את השמלה אלא לרבנן מאי ופרשו את St. Petersber g היינו דכת' ופרשו השמלה אלא [ל]רבנן מאי ופרשו Vatican 113 הינו דכת' ופרשו השמלה אלא לרבנן מאי ופרשו Vatican 130 היינו דכת' ופרשו השמלה אלא לרבנן מאי ופרשו Vatican 487 היינו דכת' ופרשו השמלה אלא לרבנן מאי ופרשו Soncino (1488) היינו דכתיב ופרשו השמלה אלא לרבנן מאי ופרשו Vilna היינו דכתיב ופרשו השמלה אלא לרבנן מאי ופרשו Munich 18 95 השמלה א"ר אבהו יפרשו מה ששם לה כדתניא ופרשו St. Petersber g אמ' ר' אבהו ופרשו הדברים ששם לה כדתניא ופרשו Vatican 113 השמלה אמ' ר' אבהו ופרשו דברים ששם לה כדתניא ופרשו Vatican מ(א)[ה 130 השמל' אמ' ר' אבהו ופרשו ] ששם לה כדתניא ופרשו Vatican 487 השמל' אמ' ר' אבהו ופרשו מה ששם לה כדתניא ופרשו Soncino (1488) השמלה אמ' ר' אבהו פרשו מה ששם לה כדתניא ופרשו Vilna השמלה אמר רבי אבהו פרשו מה ששם לה כדתניא ופרשו

300

Munich 19 95 את השמלה מלמד שבאין עדים של זה ועדים של זה St. Petersber g השמלה מלמד שבאין עדיו של זה ועדיו של זה Vatican 113 השמלה מלמד שבאין עדיו של זה ועדיו של זה Vatican 130 השמלה מלמד שבאין עדיו של זה ועדיו של זה Vatican 487 השמלה מלמד שבאין עדים של זה ועדים של זה Soncino (1488) השמלה מלמד שבאין עדים של זה ועדים של זה Vilna השמלה מלמד שבאין עדים של זה ועדים של זה Munich 20 95 ובוררין את הדבר כשמלה חדשה ר' אליעזר בן יעקב או' St. Petersber g ובוררין את הדבר כשלמה חדשה ר' אליעזר בן יעקב אומ' Vatican 113 ובוררין את הדבר כשמלה חדשה ר' אליעז' בן יעקב או' Vatican 130 ובוררין את הדבר כשמלה חדשה ר' אליעז' בן יעקב או' Vatican 487 ובררין את הדבר בשמלה חדשה ר' אליעזר בן יעקב אומ' Soncino (1488) ובוררין את הדבר כשמלה חדשה ר' אליעזר בן יעקב אומ' Vilna ובוררין את הדבר כשמלה חדשה רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר Munich 21 95 דברים ככתבן שמלה ממש שלח רב יצחק בר St. Petersber g דברים ככתבן שמלה ממש שלח ר' יצחק בן Vatican 113 דברים ככתבן שמלה שמלה ממש שלח רב יצחק בר Vatican 130 דברים ככתבן שמלה ממש שלח רב יצחק בר Vatican 487 דברים ככתבן שמלה ממש שלח רב יצחק בר Soncino (1488) דברים ככתבן שמלה ממש שלח רב יצחק בר Vilna דברים ככתבן שמלה ממש שלח רבי יצחק בר רב

301

Munich 22 95 יעקב בר גיורי משמיה דר' יוחנן אע"פ שלא מצינו בכל St. Petersber [יע](..ע) g קב בר גיורי(ם) משום ר' יוחנן אע'פ שלא מצינו בכל Vatican 113 גיורי משמיה דר' יוחנן אעפי שלא מצינו בכל Vatican 130 יעקב בר גיורי משמיה דר' יוחנן אע"פ שלא מצינו בכל Vatican 487 יעקב בר גיורי משמיה דר' יוחנן אע"פ שלא מצינו בכל Soncino (1488) יעקב בר גיורי משמיה דר' יוחנן אע"פ שלא מצינו בכל Vilna יעקב בר גיורי משמיה דרבי יוחנן אע"ג שלא מצינו בכל Munich 23 95 התורה שחילק הכתו' בין ביאה כדירכה לביאה שלא St. Petersber g התורה כולה שחלק הכת' בין ביאה כדרכה ובין ביאה שלא Vatican 113 התורה כולה שחלק הכת' בין ביאה כדרכה לביאה שאינה Vatican 130 התורה כולה [שחלק הכת'] בין ביאה כדירכה לביאה של' Vatican 487 התורה כולה שחילק הכת' בין ביאה כדרכה לביאה שלא Soncino (1488) התורה שחלק הכת' בין ביאה כדרכה לביא' של' Vilna התורה כולה שחלק הכתוב בין ביאה כדרכה לביאה שלא Munich 24 95 כדרכה למכות ולעונשין אבל מוציא שם רע אינו חייב St. Petersber [ו]לעונשי g כדרכה למכות ן אבל מוציא שם רע אינו חייב Vatican 113 <...> למכות ולעונשין מוציא שם רע אינו חייב Vatican 130 כדירכה למכות ולעונשין אבל מוציא שם רע אינו חייב Vatican 487 כדרכה למכות ולעונשין אבל מוציא שם רע אינו חייב Soncino (1488) כדרכה למכות ולעונשין אבל מוציא שם רע אינו חייב Vilna כדרכה למכות ולעונשין אבל מוציא שם רע חלק אינו חייב

302

Munich 25 95 עד שיבעול שלא כדירכה ומוציא שם רע בכדרכה כמאן אי St. Petersberg עד שיבעול שלא כדרכה ויוציא שם רע בכדרכה כמאן אי Vatican בכדירכ 113 עד שיבעול שלא כדרכה ויוציא שם רע ה כמאן אי Vatican בכדירכ 130 עד שיבעול שלא כדירכה ויוציא שם רע ה כמאן אי Vatican 487 עד שיבעול שלא כדרכה ויוציא שם רע בכדרכה כמאן אי Soncino (1488) עד שיבעול שלא כדרכה ויוציא שם רע בדרכה כמאן אי Vilna עד שיבעול שלא כדרכה ויוציא שם רע כדרכה כמאן אי Munich 26 95 כרבנן אע"ג דלא בעל אי כר' אליעזר St. Petersberg כרבנן אע'ג דלא בעל אי כדר' אליעזר Vatican 113 כרבנ' אפילו אעגב דלא בעל נמי אי כר' אליעזר Vatican 130 כרבנן אע"ג דלא בעיל אי כר' אליעזר Vatican 487 כרבנן אף על גב דלא בעל אי כר' אליעז' Soncino (1488) כרבנן אע"ג דלא בעל אי כר' אליעזר Vilna כרבנן אף על גב דלא בעל אי כר' אליעזר Munich 27 95 בן יעקב בשבעל לא אידי ואידי בכדרכה בעינן אלא St. Petersberg בן יעקב אידי ואידי בכדרכה בענן אלא Vatican בכדירכ 113 בן יעקב אידי ואידי ה בענן אלא Vatican בכדירכ 130 בן יעקב הא אידי ואידי ה אלא Vatican 487 בן יעקב אידי ואידי בכדרכה בענן אלא Soncino (1488) בן יעקב אידי ואידי כדרכה בענן אלא Vilna בן יעקב אידי ואידי כדרכה בעינן אלא

303

Munich 28 95 שלח רב כהנא משמיה דר' יוחנן אינו חייב St. Petersberg כדשלח רב כהנא משום דר' יוחנן לעולם אינו חייב Vatican 113 שלח רב כהנא משמיה דר' יוחנ' אינו חייב Vatican 130 ('של) [אמ'] רב כהנא משמיה דר' יוח' אינו חייב Vatican 487 שלח רב כהנ' משמיה דר' יוחנן אינו חייב Soncino (1488) שלח רב כהנא משמיה דר' יוחנן אינו חייב Vilna שלח רב כהנא משמיה דרבי יוחנן אינו חייב Munich 29 95 עד שיבעול בכדרכה ויוציא רע בכדרכה St. Petersberg עד שיבעול כדרכה ויוציא שם רע כדרכה <...> Vatican 113 עד שיבעול כדרכה ויוציא שם רע כדירכה Vatican 130 עד שיבעול כדירכה ומוציא [שם רע] כדירכה Vatican 487 עד שיבעול בכדרכה ויוציא שם רע בכדרכה Soncino (1488) עד שיבעול כדרכה ויוציא שם רע בכדרכה Vilna עד שיבעול כדרכה ויוציא שם רע בכדרכה

304